The Bābur-nāma in English Memoirs of Bābur

PREFACE

O Spring of work! O Source of power to Be!
Each line, each thought I dedicate to Thee;
Each time I fail, the failure is my own,
But each success, a jewel in Thy Throne.

Jessie E. Cadell.

Introductory

This book is a translation of Babur Padshah’s Autobiography, made from the original Turki text. It was undertaken after a purely-Turki manuscript had become accessible in England, the Haidarabad Codex (1915) which, being in Babur’s ipsissima verba, left to him the control of his translator’s diction – a control that had been impracticable from the time when, under Akbar (1589), his book was translated into Persian. What has come down to us of pure text is, in its shrunken amount, what was translated in 1589. It is difficult, here and there, to interpret owing to its numerous and in some places extensive lacunæ, and presents more problems than one the solution of which has real importance because they have favoured suggestions of malfeasance by Babur.

My translation has been produced under considerable drawback, having been issued in four fasciculi, at long intervals, respectively in June 1912, May 1914, October 1917, and September 1921. I have put with it of supplementary matter what may be of service to those readers whom Babur’s personality attracts and to those who study Turki as a linguistic entertainment, but owing to delays in production am unable to include the desiderata of maps.

Chapter I.
BABUR’S EXEMPLARS IN THE ARTS OF PEACE

Babur’s civilian aptitudes, whether of the author and penman, the maker of gardens, the artist, craftsman or sportsman, were nourished in a fertile soil of family tradition and example. Little about his teaching and training is now with his mutilated book, little indeed of any kind about his præ-accession years, not the date of his birth even, having escaped destruction.¹ Happily Haidar Mirza (q. v.) possessed a more complete Codex than has come down to us through the Timurid libraries, and from it he translated many episodes of Baburiana that help to bridge gaps and are of special service here where the personalities of Bābur’s early environment are being named.

Babur’s home-milieu favoured excellence in the quiet Arts and set before its children high standard and example of proficiency. Moreover, by schooling him in obedience to the Law, it planted in him some of Art’s essentials, self-restraint and close attention. Amongst primal influences on him, his mother Qut-luq-nigar’s ranked high; she, well-born and a scholar’s daughter, would certainly be educated in Turki and Persian and in the home-accomplishments her governess possessed (ātūn q.v.). From her and her mother Aisan-daulat, the child would learn respect for the attainments of his wise old grandfather Yunas Khan. Aisan-daulat herself brought to her grandson much that goes to the making of a man; nomad-born and sternly-bred, she was brave to obey her opinion of right, and was practically the boy’s ruling counsellor through his early struggle to hold Farghana. With these two in fine influence must be counted Khan-zada, his five-years elder sister who from his birth to his death proved her devotion to him. Her life-story tempts, but is too long to tell; her girlish promise is seen fulfilled in Gul-badan’s pages. ‘Umar Shaikh’s own mother Shah Sultan Begim brought in a type of merit widely differing from that of Aisan-daulat Begim; as a town-lady of high Tarkhan birth, used to the amenities of life in a wealthy house of Samarkand, she was, doubtless, an accomplished and cultured woman.

‘Umar Shaikh’s environment was dominated for many years by two great men, the scholar and lover of town-life Yunas Khan and the saintly Ahrari (i. e. Khwaja ‘Ubaidu’l-lah) who were frequently with him in company, came at Babur’s birth and assisted at his naming. Ahrari died in 895-1491 when the child was about seven years old but his influence was life-long; in 935-1529 he was invoked as a spiritual helper by the fever-stricken Babur and his mediation believed efficacious for recovery (pp. 619, 648). For the babe or boy to be where the three friends held social session in high converse, would be thought to draw blessing on him; his hushed silence in the presence would sow the seed of reverence for wisdom and virtue, such, for example, as he felt for Jami (q. v.). It is worth while to tell some part at least of Yunas’ attainments in the gentler Arts, because the biography from which they are quoted may well have been written on the information of his wife Aisan-daulat, and it indicates the breadth of his exemplary influence. Yunas was many things – penman, painter, singer, instrumentalist, and a past master in the crafts. He was an expert in good companionship, having even temper and perfect manners, quick perception and conversational charm. His intellectual distinction was attributed to his twelve years of wardship under the learned and highly honoured Yazdi (Sharafu’d-din ’Ali), the author of the Zafar-nama [Timur’s Book of Victory]. That book was in hand during four years of Yunas’ education; he will thus have known it and its main basis Timur’s Turki Malfūzāt (annals). What he learned of either book he would carry with him into ‘Umar Shaikh’s environment, thus magnifying the family stock of Timuriya influence. He lived to be some 74 years old, a length of days which fairly bridged the gap between Timur’s death [807-1404] and Babur’s birth (888-1483). It is said that no previous Khan of his (Chaghatai) line had survived his 40th year; his exceptional age earned him great respect and would deepen his influence on his restless young son-in-law ‘Umar Shaikh. It appears to have been in ‘Umar’s 20th year (cir.) that Yunas Khan began the friendly association with him that lasted till Yunas’ death (892-1483), a friendship which, as disparate ages would dictate, was rather that of father and son than of equal companionship. One matter mentioned in the Khan’s biography would come to Babur’s remembrance in the future days when he, like Yunas, broke the Law against intoxicants and, like him, repented and returned.

That two men of the calibre and high repute of Ahrari and Yunas maintained friendly guidance so long over ‘Umar cannot but be held an accreditment and give fragrance of goodness to his name. Apart from the high justice and generosity his son ascribes to him, he could set other example, for he was a reader of great books, the Qoran and the Masnawi being amongst his favourites. This choice, it may be, led Abu’l-faẓl to say he had the darwesh-mind. Babur was old enough before ‘Umar’s death to profit by the sight of his father enjoying the perusal of such books. As with other parents and other children, there would follow the happy stilling to a quiet mood, the piquing of curiosity as to what was in the book, the sight of refuge taken as in a haven from self and care, and perhaps, Babur being intelligent and of inquiring mind and ‘Umar a skilled reciter, the boy would marvel at the perennial miracle that a lifeless page can become eloquent – gentle hints all, pointers of the way to literary creation.

Few who are at home in Baburiana but will take Timur as Babur’s great exemplar not only as a soldier but as a chronicler. Timur cannot have seemed remote from that group of people so well-informed about him and his civilian doings; his Shahrukhi grandchildren in Samarkand had carried on his author-tradition; the 74 years of Yunas Khan’s life had bridged the gap between Timur’s death in 807-1405 and Babur’s birth in 888-1483. To Babur Timur will have been exemplary through his grandson Aulugh Beg who has two productions to his credit, the Char-ulus (Four Hordes) and the Kurkani Astronomical Tables. His sons, again, Babur (qalandar) and Ibrahim carried on the family torch of letters, the first in verse and the second by initiating and fostering Yazdi’s labours on the Zafar-nama. Wide-radiating and potent influence for the Arts of Peace came forth from Herat during the reign of that Sultan Husain Mirza whose Court Babur describes in one of the best supplements to his autobiography. Husain was a Timurid of the elder branch of Bai-qara, an author himself but far more effective as a Macænas; one man of the shining galaxy of competence that gave him fame, set pertinent example for Babur the author, namely, the Andijani of noble Chaghatai family, ’Ali-sher Nawa’i who, in classic Turki verse was the master Babur was to become in its prose. That the standard of effort was high in Herat is clear from Babur’s dictum (p. 233) that whatever work a man took up, he aspired to bring it to perfection. Elphinstone varies the same theme to the tune of equality of excellence apart from social status, writing to Erskine (August, 1826), that “it gives a high notion of the time to find” (in Babur’s account of Husain’s Court) “artists, musicians and others, described along with the learned and great of the Age”.

My meagre summary of Babur’s exemplars would be noticeably incomplete if it omitted mention of two of his life-long helpers in the gentler Arts, his love of Nature and his admiration for great architectural creations. The first makes joyous accompaniment throughout his book; the second is specially called forth by Timur’s ennoblement of Samarkand. Timur had built magnificently and laid out stately gardens; Babur made many a fruitful pleasaunce and gladdened many an arid halting-place; he built a little, but had small chance to test his capacity for building greatly; never rich, he was poor in Kabul and several times destitute in his home-lands. But his sword won what gave wealth to his Indian Dynasty, and he passed on to it the builder’s unused dower, so that Samarkand was surpassed in Hindustan and the spiritual conception Timur’s creations embodied took perfect form at Sikandra where Akbar lies entombed.

Chapter II.
PROBLEMS OF THE MUTILATED BABUR-NAMA

Losses from the text of Babur’s book are the more disastrous because it truly embodies his career. For it has the rare distinction of being contemporary with the events it describes, is boyish in his boyhood, grows with his growth, matures as he matured. Undulled by retrospect, it is a fresh and spontaneous recital of things just seen, heard or done. It has the further rare distinction of shewing a boy who, setting a future task before him – in his case the revival of Timurid power, – began to chronicle his adventure in the book which through some 37 years was his twinned comrade, which by its special distinctions has attracted readers for nearly a half-millennium, still attracts and still is a thing apart from autobiographies which look back to recall dead years.

Much circumstance makes for the opinion that Babur left his life-record complete, perhaps repaired in places and recently supplemented, but continuous, orderly and lucid; this it is not now, nor has been since it was translated into Persian in 1589, for it is fissured by lacunæ, has neither Preface nor Epilogue,² opens in an oddly abrupt and incongruous fashion, and consists of a series of fragments so disconnected as to demand considerable preliminary explanation. Needless to say, its dwindled condition notwithstanding, it has place amongst great autobiographies, still revealing its author playing a man’s part in a drama of much historic and personal interest. Its revelation is however now like a portrait out of drawing, because it has not kept the record of certain years of his manhood in which he took momentous decisions,(1) those of 1511-12 [918] in which he accepted reinforcement – at a great price – from Isma‘il the Shi‘a Shah of Persia, and in which, if my reading be correct, he first (1512) broke the Law against the use of wine,³ (2) those of 1519-1525 [926-932], in which his literary occupations with orthodox Law (see Mubin) associated with cognate matters of 932 AH. indicate that his return to obedience had begun, in which too was taken the decision that worked out for his fifth expedition across the Indus with its sequel of the conquest of Hind. – The loss of matter so weighty cannot but destroy the balance of his record and falsify the drawing of his portrait.

a. Problem of Titles.

As nothing survives to decide what was Babur’s chosen title for his autobiography, a modern assignment of names to distinguish it from its various descendants is desirable, particularly so since the revival of interest in it towards which the Facsimile of its Haidarabad Codex has contributed.⁴

Babur-nama (History of Babur) is a well-warranted name by which to distinguish the original Turki text, because long associated with this and rarely if ever applied to its Persian translation.⁵ It is not comprehensive because not covering supplementary matter of biography and description but it has use for modern readers of classing Babur’s with other Timuriya and Timurid histories such as the Zafar-Humayun-Akbar-namas.

Waqi‘āt-i-baburi (Babur’s Acts), being descriptive of the book and in common use for naming both the Turki and Persian texts, might usefully be reserved as a title for the latter alone.

Amongst European versions of the book Memoirs of Baber is Erskine’s peculium for the Leyden and Erskine Perso-English translation —Mémoires de Baber is Pavet de Courteille’s title for his French version of the Bukhara [Persified-Turki] compilation —Babur-nama in English links the translation these volumes contain with its purely-Turki source.

b. Problems of the Constituents of the Books.

Intact or mutilated, Babur’s material falls naturally into three territorial divisions, those of the lands of his successive rule, Farghana (with Samarkand), Kabul and Hindustan. With these are distinct sub-sections of description of places and of obituaries of kinsmen.

The book might be described as consisting of annals and diary, which once met within what is now the gap of 1508-19 (914-925). Round this gap, amongst others, bristle problems of which this change of literary style is one; some are small and concern the mutilation alone, others are larger, but all are too intricate for terse statement and all might be resolved by the help of a second MS. e. g. one of the same strain as Haidar’s.

Without fantasy another constituent might be counted in with the three territorial divisions, namely, the grouped lacunæ which by their engulfment of text are an untoward factor in an estimate either of Babur or of his book. They are actually the cardinal difficulty of the book as it now is; they foreshorten purview of his career and character and detract from its merits; they lose it perspective and distort its proportions. That this must be so is clear both from the value and the preponderating amount of the lost text. It is no exaggeration to say that while working on what survives, what is lost becomes like a haunting presence warning that it must be remembered always as an integral and the dominant part of the book.

The relative proportions of saved and lost text are highly significant: – Babur’s commemorable years are about 47 and 10 months, i. e. from his birth on Feb. 14th 1483 to near his death on Dec. 26th 1530; but the aggregate of surviving text records some 18 years only, and this not continuously but broken through by numerous gaps. That these gaps result from loss of pages is frequently shewn by a broken sentence, an unfinished episode. The fragments – as they truly may be called – are divided by gaps sometimes seeming to remove a few pages only (cf. s. a. 935 AH.), sometimes losing the record of 6 and cir. 18 months, sometimes of 6 and 11 years; besides these actual clefts in the narrative there are losses of some 12 years from its beginning and some 16 months from its end. Briefly put we now have the record of cir. 18 years where that of over 47 could have been.⁶

c. Causes of the gaps.

Various causes have been surmised to explain the lacunæ; on the plea of long intimacy with Babur’s and Haidar’s writings, I venture to say that one and all appear to me the result of accident. This opinion rests on observed correlations between the surviving and the lost record, which demand complement – on the testimony of Haidar’s extracts, and firmly on Babur’s orderly and persistent bias of mind and on the prideful character of much of the lost record. Moreover occasions of risk to Babur’s papers are known.

Of these occasions the first was the destruction of his camp near Hisar in 1512 (918; p. 357) but no information about his papers survives; they may not have been in his tent but in the fort. The second was a case of recorded damage to “book and sections” (p. 679) occurring in 1529 (935). From signs of work done to the Farghana section in Hindustan, the damage may be understood made good at the later date. To the third exposure to damage, namely, the attrition of hard travel and unsettled life during Humayun’s 14 years of exile from rule in Hindustan (1441-1555) it is reasonable to attribute even the whole loss of text. For, assuming – as may well be done – that Babur left (1530) a complete autobiography, its volume would be safe so long as Humayun was in power but after the Timurid exodus (1441) his library would be exposed to the risks detailed in the admirable chronicles of Gul-badan, Jauhar and Bayazid (q. v.). He is known to have annotated his father’s book in 1555 (p. 466 n. 1) just before marching from Kabul to attempt the re-conquest of Hindustan. His Codex would return to Dihli which he entered in July 1555, and there would be safe from risk of further mutilation. Its condition in 1555 is likely to have remained what it was found when ‘Abdu’r-rahim translated it into Persian by Akbar’s orders (1589) for Abu’l-faẓl’s use in the Akbar-nama. That Persian translation with its descendant the Memoirs of Baber, and the purely-Turki Haidarabad Codex with its descendant the Babur-nama in English, contain identical contents and, so doing, carry the date of the mutilation of Babur’s Turki text back through its years of safety, 1589 to 1555, to the period of Humayun’s exile and its dangers for camel-borne or deserted libraries.

d. Two misinterpretations of lacunæ.

Not unnaturally the frequent interruptions of narrative caused by lacunæ have been misinterpreted occasionally, and sometimes detractory comment has followed on Babur, ranking him below the accomplished and lettered, steadfast and honest man he was. I select two examples of this comment neither of which has a casual origin.

The first is from the B.M. Cat. of Coins of the Shahs of Persia p. xxiv, where after identifying a certain gold coin as shewing vassalage by Babur to Isma‘il Safawi, the compiler of the Catalogue notes, “We can now understand the omission from Babar’s ‘Memoirs’ of the occurrences between 914 H. and 925 H.” Can these words imply other than that Babur suppressed mention of minting of the coins shewing acknowledgment of Shi‘a suzerainty? Leaving aside the delicate topic of the detraction the quoted words imply, much negatives the surmise that the gap is a deliberate “omission” of text: – (1) the duration of the Shi‘a alliance was 19-20 months of 917-918 AH. (p. 355), why omit the peaceful or prideful and victorious record of some 9-10 years on its either verge? (2) Babur’s Transoxus campaign was an episode in the struggle between Shaibaq Khan (Shaibani) Auzbeg and Shah Isma‘il – between Sunni and Shi‘a; how could “omission” from his book, always a rare one, hide what multitudes knew already? “Omission” would have proved a fiasco in another region than Central Asia, because the Babur-Haidar story of the campaign, vassal-coinage included,⁷ has been brought into English literature by the English translation of the Tarikh-i rashidi. Babur’s frank and self-judging habit of mind would, I think, lead him to write fully of the difficulties which compelled the hated alliance and certainly he would tell of his own anger at the conduct of the campaign by Isma‘il’s Commanders. The alliance was a tactical mistake; it would have served Babur better to narrate its failure.

The second misinterpretation, perhaps a mere surmising gloss, is Erskine’s (Memoirs Supp. p. 289) who, in connection with ‘Alam Khan’s request to Babur for reinforcement in order to oust his nephew Ibrahim, observes that “Babur probably flattered ‘Alam Khan with the hope of succession to the empire of Hindustan.” This idea does not fit the record of either man. Elphinstone was angered by Erskine’s remark which, he wrote (Aug. 26th 1826) “had a bad effect on the narrative by weakening the implicit confidence in Babur’s candour and veracity which his frank way of writing is so well-calculated to command.” Elphinstone’s opinion of Babur is not that of a reader but of a student of his book; he was also one of Erskine’s staunchest helpers in its production. From Erskine’s surmise others have advanced on the detractor’s path saying that Babur used and threw over ‘Alam Khan (q. v.).

e. Reconstruction.

Amongst the problems mutilation has created an important one is that of the condition of the beginning of the book (p. 1 to p. 30) with its plunge into Babur’s doings in his 12th year without previous mention of even his day and place of birth, the names and status of his parents, or any occurrences of his præ-accession years. Within those years should be entered the death of Yunas Khan (1487) with its sequent obituary notice, and the death of [Khwaja ‘Ubaidu’l-lah] Ahrari (1491). Not only are these customary entries absent but the very introductions of the two great men are wanting, probably with the also missing account of their naming of the babe Babur. That these routine matters are a part of an autobiography planned as Babur’s was, makes for assured opinion that the record of more than his first decade of life has been lost, perhaps by the attrition to which its position in the volume exposed it.

Useful reconstruction if merely in tabulated form, might be effected in a future edition. It would save at least two surprises for readers, one the oddly abrupt first sentence telling of Babur’s age when he became ruler in Farghana (p. 1), which is a misfit in time and order, another that of the sudden interruption of ‘Umar Shaikh’s obituary by a fragment of Yunas Khan’s (p. 19) which there hangs on a mere name-peg, whereas its place according to Babur’s elsewhere unbroken practice is directly following the death. The record of the missing præ-accession years will have included at the least as follows: – Day of birth and its place – names and status of parents – naming and the ceremonial observances proper for Muhammadan children – visits to kinsfolk in Tashkint, and to Samarkand (æt. 5, p. 35) where he was betrothed – his initiation in school subjects, in sport, the use of arms – names of teachers – education in the rules of his Faith (p. 44), appointment to the Andijan Command etc., etc.

There is now no fit beginning to the book; the present first sentence and its pendent description of Farghana should be removed to the position Babur’s practice dictates of entering the description of a territory at once on obtaining it (cf. Samarkand, Kabul, Hindustan). It might come in on p. 30 at the end of the topic (partly omitted on p. 29 where no ground is given for the manifest anxiety about Babur’s safety) of the disputed succession (Haidar, trs. p. 135) Babur’s partisan begs having the better of Jahangir’s (q. v.), and having testified obeisance, he became ruler in Farghana; his statement of age (12 years), comes in naturally and the description of his newly acquired territory follows according to rule. This removal of text to a later position has the advantage of allowing the accession to follow and not precede Babur’s father’s death.

By the removal there is left to consider the historical matter of pp. 12-13. The first paragraph concerns matter of much earlier date than ‘Umar’s death in 1494 (p. 13); it may be part of an obituary notice, perhaps that of Yunas Khan. What follows of the advance of displeased kinsmen against ‘Umar Shaikh would fall into place as part of Babur’s record of his boyhood, and lead on to that of his father’s death.

The above is a bald sketch of what might be effected in the interests of the book and to facilitate its pleasant perusal.

Chapter III.
THE TURKI MSS. AND WORK CONNECTING WITH THEM

This chapter is a literary counterpart of “Babur Padshah’s Stone-heap,” the roadside cairn tradition says was piled by his army, each man laying his stone when passing down from Kabul for Hindustan in the year of victory 1525 (932).⁸

For a title suiting its contents is “Babur Padshah’s Book-pile,” because it is fashioned of item after item of pen-work done by many men in obedience to the dictates given by his book. Unlike the cairn, however, the pile of books is not of a single occasion but of many, not of a single year but of many, irregularly spacing the 500 years through which he and his autobiography have had Earth’s immortality.

Part I. The MSS. themselves

Preliminary.– Much of the information given below was published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society from 1900 onwards, as it came into my possession during a search for reliable Turki text of the Babur-nama. My notes were progressive; some MSS. were in distant places, some not traceable, but in the end I was able to examine in England all of whose continued existence I had become aware. It was inevitable that some of my earlier statements should be superseded later; my Notes (see s.n. JRAS.) need clearing of transitory matter and summarizing, in particular those on the Elphinstone Codex and Klaproth’s articles. Neither they nor what is placed here makes claim to be complete. Other workers will supplement them when the World has renewed opportunity to stroll in the bye-paths of literature.

Few copies of the Babur-nama seem to have been made; of the few I have traced as existing, not one contains the complete autobiography, and one alone has the maximum of dwindled text shewn in the Persian translation (1589). Two books have been reputed to contain Babur’s authentic text, one preserved in Hindustan by his descendants, the other issuing from Bukhara. They differ in total contents, arrangement and textual worth; moreover the Bukhara book compiles items of divers diction and origin and date, manifestly not from one pen.

The Hindustan book is a record – now mutilated – of the Acts of Babur alone; the Bukhara book as exhibited in its fullest accessible example, Kehr’s Codex, is in two parts, each having its preface, the first reciting Babur’s Acts, the second Humayun’s.

The Bukhara book is a compilation of oddments, mostly translated from compositions written after Babur’s death. Textual and circumstantial grounds warrant the opinion that it is a distinct work mistakenly believed to be Babur’s own; to these grounds was added in 1903 the authoritative verdict of collation with the Haidarabad Codex, and in 1921 of the colophon of its original MS. in which its author gives his name, with the title and date of his compilation (JRAS. 1900, p. 474). What it is and what are its contents and history are told in Part III of this chapter.

Part II. Work on the Hindustan MSS

Babur’s Original Codex

My latest definite information about Babur’s autograph MS. comes from the Padshah-nama (Bib. Ind. ed. ii, 4), whose author saw it in Shah-i-jahan’s private library between 1628 and 1638. Inference is justified, however, that it was the archetype of the Haidarabad Codex which has been estimated from the quality of its paper as dating cir. 1700 (JRAS. 1906, p. 97). But two subsequent historic disasters complicate all questions of MSS. missing from Indian libraries, namely, Nadir Shah’s vengeance on Dihli in 1739 and the dispersions and fires of the Mutiny. Faint hope is kept alive that the original Codex may have drifted into private hands, by what has occurred with the Rampur MS. of Babur’s Hindustan verses (App. J), which also appears once to have belonged to Shah-i-jahan.

I

Amongst items of work done during Babur’s life are copies of his book (or of the Hindustan section of it) he mentions sending to sons and friends.

II

The Tabaqat-i-baburi was written during Babur’s life by his Persian secretary Shaikh Zainu’d-din of Khawaf; it paraphrases in rhetorical Persian the record of a few months of Hindustan campaigning, including the battle of Panipat.

Table of the Hindustan MSS. of the Babur-nama.⁹

Примечание 1¹⁰

Примечание 2¹¹

III

During the first decade of Humayun’s reign (1530-40) at least two important codices seem to have been copied.

The earlier (see Table, No. 2) has varied circumstantial warrant. It meets the need of an archetype, one marginally annotated by Humayun, for the Elphinstone Codex in which a few notes are marginal and signed, others are pell-mell, interpolated in the text but attested by a scrutineer as having been marginal in its archetype and mistakenly copied into its text. This second set has been ineffectually sponged over. Thus double collation is indicated (i) with Babur’s autograph MS. to clear out extra Babur matter, and (ii) with its archetype, to justify the statement that in this the interpolations were marginal. – No colophon survives with the much dwindled Elph. Codex, but one, suiting the situation, has been observed, where it is a complete misfit, appended to the Alwar Codex of the second Persian translation, (estimated as copied in 1589). Into the incongruities of that colophon it is not necessary to examine here, they are too obvious to aim at deceit; it appears fitly to be an imperfect translation from a Turki original, this especially through its odd fashion of entitling “Humayun Padshah.” It can be explained as translating the colophon of the Codex (No. 2) which, as his possession, Humayun allowably annotated and which makes it known that he had ordered ‘Ali’u-’l-katib to copy his father’s Turki book, and that it was finished in February, 1531, some six weeks after Babur’s death.¹²

The later copy made in Humayun’s first decade is Haidar Mirza’s (infra).

IV

Muhammad Haidar Mirza Dughlat’s possession of a copy of the Autobiography is known both from his mention of it and through numerous extracts translated from it in his Tarikh-i-rashidi. As a good boy-penman (p. 22) he may have copied down to 1512 (918) while with Babur (p. 350), but for obtaining a transcript of it his opportunity was while with Humayun before the Timurid exodus of 1541. He died in 1551; his Codex is likely to have found its way back from Kashmir to his ancestral home in the Kashghar region and there it may still be. (See T.R. trs. Ney Elias’ biography of him).

V

The Elphinstone Codex¹³ has had an adventurous career. The enigma of its archetype is posed above; it may have been copied during Akbar’s first decade (1556-67); its, perhaps first, owner was a Bai-qara rebel (d. 1567) from amongst whose possessions it passed into the Royal Library, where it was cleared of foreign matter by the expunction of Humayun’s marginal notes which its scribe had interpolated into its text. At a date I do not know, it must have left the Royal Library for its fly-leaves bear entries of prices and in 1810 it was found and purchased in Peshawar by Elphinstone. It went with him to Calcutta, and there may have been seen by Leyden during the short time between its arrival and the autumn month of the same year (1810) when he sailed for Java. In 1813 Elphinstone in Poona sent it to Erskine in Bombay, saying that he had fancied it gone to Java and had been writing to ‘Izzatu’l-lah to procure another MS. for Erskine in Bukhara, but that all the time it was on his own shelves. Received after Erskine had dolefully compared his finished work with Leyden’s (tentative) translation, Erskine sadly recommenced the review of his own work. The Codex had suffered much defacement down to 908 (1502) at the hands of “a Persian Turk of Ganj” who had interlined it with explanations. It came to Scotland (with Erskine?) who in 1826 sent it with a covering letter (Dec. 12th, 1826), at its owner’s desire, to the Advocates’ Library where it now is. In 1907 it was fully described by me in the JRAS.

VI

Of two Waqi’at-i-baburi (Pers. trs.) made in Akbar’s reign, the earlier was begun in 1583, at private instance, by two Mughuls Payanda-hasan of Ghazni and Muhammad-quli of Hisar. The Bodleian and British Museum Libraries have copies of it, very fragmentary unfortunately, for it is careful, likeable, and helpful by its small explanatory glosses. It has the great defect of not preserving autobiographic quality in its diction.

VII

The later Waqi’at-i-baburi translated by ‘Abdu’r-rahim Mirza is one of the most important items in Baburiana, both by its special characteristics as the work of a Turkman and not of a Persian, and by the great service it has done. Its origin is well-known; it was made at Akbar’s order to help Abu’l-faẓl in the Akbar-nāma account of Babur and also to facilitate perusal of the Babur-nama in Hindustan. It was presented to Akbar, by its translator who had come up from Gujrat, in the last week of November, 1589, on an occasion and at a place of admirable fitness. For Akbar had gone to Kabul to visit Babur’s tomb, and was halting on his return journey at Barik-ab where Babur had halted on his march down to Hindustan in the year of victory 1525, at no great distance from “Babur Padshah’s Stone-heap”. Abu’l-faẓl’s account of the presentation will rest on ‘Abdu’r-rahim’s information (A.N. trs. cap. ci). The diction of this translation is noticeable; it gave much trouble to Erskine who thus writes of it (Memoirs Preface, lx), “Though simple and precise, a close adherence to the idioms and forms of expression of the Turki original joined to a want of distinctness in the use of the relatives, often renders the meaning extremely obscure, and makes it difficult to discover the connexion of the different members of the sentence.¹⁴ The style is frequently not Persian… Many of the Turki words are untranslated.”

Difficult as these characteristics made Erskine’s interpretation, it appears to me likely that they indirectly were useful to him by restraining his diction to some extent in their Turki fettering. – This Turki fettering has another aspect, apart from Erskine’s difficulties, viz. it would greatly facilitate re-translation into Turki, such as has been effected, I think, in the Farghana section of the Bukhara compilation.¹⁵

VIII

This item of work, a harmless attempt of Salim (i. e. Jahangir Padshah; 1605-28) to provide the ancestral autobiography with certain stop-gaps, has caused much needless trouble and discussion without effecting any useful result. It is this: – In his own autobiography, the Tuzuk-i-jahangiri s.a. 1607, he writes of a Babur-nama Codex he examined, that it was all in Babur’s “blessed handwriting” except four portions which were in his own and each of which he attested in Turki as so being. Unfortunately he did not specify his topics; unfortunately also no attestation has been found to passages reasonably enough attributable to his activities. His portions may consist of the “Rescue-passage” (App. D) and a length of translation from the Akbar-nāma, a continuous part of its Babur chapter but broken up where only I have seen it, i. e. the Bukhara compilation, into (1) a plain tale of Kanwa (1527), (2) episodes of Babur’s latter months (1529) – both transferred to the first person – and (3) an account of Babur’s death (December 26th, 1530) and Court.

Jahangir’s occupation, harmless in itself, led to an imbroglio of Langlés with Erskine, for the former stating in the Biographie Universelle art. Babour, that Babour’s Commentaries “augmentés par Jahangir” were translated into Persian by ‘Abdu’r-rahim. Erskine made answer, “I know not on what authority the learned Langlés hazarded this assertion, which is certainly incorrect” (Memoirs, Preface, p. ix). Had Langlés somewhere met with Jahangir’s attestations? He had authority if he had seen merely the statement of 1607, but Erskine was right also, because the Persian translation contains no more than the unaugmented Turki text. The royal stop-gaps are in Kehr’s MS. and through Ilminski reached De Courteille, whence the biting and thorough analysis of the three “Fragments” by Teufel. Both episodes – the Langlés and the Teufel ones – are time-wasters but they are comprehensible in the circumstances that Jahangir could not foresee the consequences of his doubtless good intentions.

If the question arise of how writings that had had place in Jahangir’s library reached Bukhara, their open road is through the Padshah’s correspondence (App. Q and references), with a descendant of Ahrari in whose hands they were close to Bukhara.¹⁶

It groups scattered information to recall that Salim (Jahangir) was ‘Abdu’r-rahim’s ward, that then, as now, Babur’s Autobiography was the best example of classic Turki, and that it would appeal on grounds of piety – as it did appeal on some sufficient ground – to have its broken story made good. Also that for three of the four “portions” Abu’l-fazl’s concise matter was to hand.

IX

My information concerning Baburiana under Shah-i-jahan Padshah (1628-58) is very meagre. It consists of (1) his attestation of a signature of Babur (App. Q and photo), (2) his possession of Babur’s autograph Codex (Padshah-nama, Bib. Ind. ed., ii, 4), and (3) his acceptance, and that by his literary entourage, of Mir Abu-talib Husaini’s Persian translation of Timur’s Annals, the Malfuzat whose preparation the Zafar-nama describes and whose link with Babur’s writings is that of the exemplar to the emulator.¹⁷

X

The Haidarabad Codex may have been inscribed under Aurang-zib Padshah (1655-1707). So many particulars about it have been given already that little needs saying here.¹⁸ It was the grande trouvaille of my search for Turki text wherewith to revive Babur’s autobiography both in Turki and English. My husband in 1900 saw it in Haidarabad; through the kind offices of the late Sayyid Ali Bilgrami it was lent to me; it proved to surpass, both in volume and quality, all other Babur-nama MSS. I had traced; I made its merits known to Professor Edward Granville Browne, just when the E. J. Wilkinson Gibb Trust was in formation, with the happy and accordant result that the best prose book in classic Turki became the first item in the Memorial —matris ad filium– of literary work done in the name of the Turkish scholar, and Babur’s very words were safeguarded in hundred-fold facsimile. An event so important for autobiography and for Turki literature may claim more than the bald mention of its occurrence, because sincere autobiography, however ancient, is human and social and undying, so that this was no mere case of multiplying copies of a book, but was one of preserving a man’s life in his words. There were, therefore, joyful red-letter days in the English story of the Codex – outstanding from others being those on which its merits revealed themselves (on Surrey uplands) – the one which brought Professor Browne’s acceptance of it for reproduction by the Trust – and the day of pause from work marked by the accomplished fact of the safety of the Babur-nama.

XI

The period from cir. 1700, the date of the Haidarabad Codex, and 1810, when the Elphinstone Codex was purchased by its sponsor at Peshawar, appears to have been unfruitful in work on the Hindustan MSS. Causes for this may connect with historic events, e. g. Nadir Shah’s desolation of Dihli and the rise of the East India Company, and, in Baburiana, with the disappearance of Babur’s autograph Codex (it was unknown to the Scots of 1800-26), and the transfer of the Elphinstone Codex from royal possession – this, possibly however, an accident of royal travel to and from Kabul at earlier dates.

The first quarter of the nineteenth century was, on the contrary, most fruitful in valuable work, useful impulse to which was given by Dr. John Leyden who in about 1805 began to look into Turki. Like his contemporary Julius Klaproth (q. v.), he was avid of tongues and attracted by Turki and by Babur’s writings of which he had some knowledge through the ‘Abdu’r-rahim (Persian) translation. His Turki text-book would be the MS. of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,¹⁹ a part-copy of the Bukhara compilation, from which he had the India Office MS. copied. He took up Turki again in 1810, after his return from Malay and whilst awaiting orders in Calcutta for departure to Java. He sailed in the autumn of the year and died in August 1811. Much can be learned about him and his Turki occupations from letters (infra xiii) written to Erskine by him and by others of the Scottish band which now achieved such fine results for Babur’s Autobiography.

It is necessary to say something of Leyden’s part in producing the Memoirs, because Erskine, desiring to “lose nothing that might add to Leyden’s reputation”, has assigned to him an undue position of collaboration in it both by giving him premier place on its title-page and by attributing to him the beginning the translation. What one gleans of Leyden’s character makes an impression of unassumption that would forbid his acceptance of the posthumous position given to him, and, as his translation shews the tyro in Turki, there can be no ground for supposing he would wish his competence in it over-estimated. He had, as dates show, nothing to do with the actual work of the Memoirs which was finished before Erskine had seen in 1813 what Leyden had set down before he died in 1811. As the Memoirs is now a rare book, I quote from it what Erskine says (Preface, p. ix) of Leyden’s rough translation: – “This acquisition (i. e. of Leyden’s trs.) reduced me to rather an awkward dilemma. The two translations (his own and Leyden’s) differed in many important particulars; but as Dr. Leyden had the advantage of translating from the original, I resolved to adopt his translation as far as it went, changing only such expressions in it as seemed evidently to be inconsistent with the context, or with other parts of the Memoirs, or such as seemed evidently to originate in the oversights that are unavoidable in an unfinished work.²⁰ This labour I had completed with some difficulty, when Mr. Elphinstone sent me the copy of the Memoirs of Baber in the original Tūrkī (i. e. The Elphinstone Codex) which he had procured when he went to Peshawar on his embassy to Kabul. This copy, which he had supposed to have been sent with Dr. Leyden’s manuscripts from Calcutta, he was now fortunate enough to recover (in his own library at Poona). “The discovery of this valuable manuscript reduced me, though heartily sick of the task, to the necessity of commencing my work once more.”

Erskine’s Preface (pp. x, xi) contains various other references to Leyden’s work which indicate its quality as tentative and unrevised. It is now in the British Museum Library.

XII

Little need be said here about the Memoirs of Baber.²¹ Erskine worked on a basis of considerable earlier acquaintance with his Persian original, for, as his Preface tells, he had (after Leyden’s death) begun to translate this some years before he definitely accepted the counsel of Elphinstone and Malcolm to undertake the Memoirs. He finished his translation in 1813, and by 1816 was able to dedicate his complete volume to Elphinstone, but publication was delayed till 1826. His was difficult pioneer-work, and carried through with the drawback of working on a secondary source. It has done yeoman service, of which the crowning merit is its introduction of Babur’s autobiography to the Western world.

XIII

Amongst Erskine’s literary remains are several bound volumes of letters from Elphinstone, Malcolm, Leyden, and others of that distinguished group of Scots who promoted the revival of Babur’s writings. Erskine’s grandson, the late Mr. Lestocq Erskine, placed these, with other papers, at our disposal, and they are now located where they have been welcomed as appropriate additions: – Elphinstone’s are in the Advocates’ Library, where already (1826) he, through Erskine, had deposited his own Codex – and with his letters are those of Malcolm and more occasional correspondents; Leyden’s letters (and various papers) are in the Memorial Cottage maintained in his birthplace Denholm (Hawick) by the Edinburgh Border Counties Association; something fitting went to the Bombay Asiatic Society and a volume of diary to the British Museum. Leyden’s papers will help his fuller biography; Elphinstone’s letters have special value as recording his co-operation with Erskine by much friendly criticism, remonstrance against delay, counsels and encouragement. They, moreover, shew the estimate an accomplished man of modern affairs formed of Babur Padshah’s character and conduct; some have been quoted in Colebrooke’s Life of Elphinstone, but there they suffer by detachment from the rest of his Baburiana letters; bound together as they now are, and with brief explanatory interpolations, they would make a welcome item for “Babur Padshah’s Book-pile”.

XIV

In May 1921 the contents of these volumes were completed, namely, the Babur-nama in English and its supplements, the aims of which are to make Babur known in English diction answering to his ipsissima verba, and to be serviceable to readers and students of his book and of classic Turki.

XV

Of writings based upon or relating to Babur’s the following have appeared: —

Denkwurdigkeiten des Zahir-uddin Muhammad Babar – A. Kaiser (Leipzig, 1828). This consists of extracts translated from the Memoirs.

An abridgement of the Memoirs – R. M. Caldecott (London, 1844).

History of India – Baber and Humayun – W. Erskine (Longmans, 1854).

Babar – Rulers of India series – Stanley Lane-Poole (Oxford, 1899).

Tuzuk-i-babari or Waqi‘at-i-babari (i. e. the Persian trs.) – Elliot and Dowson’s History of India, 1872, vol. iv.

Babur Padshah Ghazi– H. Beveridge (Calcutta Review, 1899).

Babur’s diamond, was it the Koh-i-nur? – H. Beveridge, Asiatic Quarterly Review, April, 1899.

Was ‘Abdu’r-rahim the translator of Babur’s Memoirs? (i. e. the Babur-nama) – H. Beveridge, AQR., July and October, 1900.

An Empire-builder of the 16th century, Babur – Laurence F. L. Williams (Allahabad, 1918).

Notes on the MSS. of the Turki text (Babur-nāma) – A. S. Beveridge, JRAS. 1900, 1902, 1921, 1905, and Part II 1906, 1907, 1908, p. 52 and p. 828, 1909 p. 452 (see Index, s. n. A. S. B. for topics).

[For other articles and notes by H. B. see Index s. n.]

Part III. The “Bukhara Babur-nama”

This is a singular book and has had a career as singular as its characteristics, a very comedy of (blameless) errors and mischance. For it is a compilation of items diverse in origin, diction, and age, planned to be a record of the Acts of Babur and Humayun, dependent through its Babur portion on the ‘Abdu’r-rahim Persian translation for re-translation, or verbatim quotation, or dove-tailing effected on the tattered fragments of what had once been Kamran’s Codex of the Babur-nama proper, the whole interspersed by stop-gaps attributable to Jahangir. These and other specialities notwithstanding, it ranked for nearly 200 years as a reproduction of Babur’s authentic text, as such was sent abroad, as such was reconstructed and printed in Kasan (1857), translated in Paris (1871), catalogued for the Petrograd Oriental School (1894), and for the India Office (1903).²²

Manifest causes for the confusion of identity are, (1) lack of the guidance in Bukhara and Petrograd of collation with the true text, (2) want of information, in the Petrograd of 1700-25, about Babur’s career, coupled with the difficulties of communication with Bukhara, (3) the misleading feature in the compiled book of its author’s retention of the autobiographic form of his sources, without explanation as to whether he entered surviving fragments of Kamran’s Codex, patchings or extracts from ‘Abdu’r-rahim’s Persian translation, or quotations of Jahangir’s stop-gaps. Of these three causes for error the first is dominant, entailing as it does the drawbacks besetting work on an inadequate basis.

It is necessary to enumerate the items of the Compilation here as they are arranged in Kehr’s autograph Codex, because that codex (still in London) may not always be accessible,²³ and because the imprint does not obey its model, but aims at closer agreement of the Bukhara Compilation with Ilminski’s gratefully acknowledged guide —The Memoirs of Baber. Distinction in commenting on the Bukhara and the Kasan versions is necessary; their discrepancy is a scene in the comedy of errors.

Outline of the History of the Compilation

An impelling cause for the production of the Bukhara compilation is suggested by the date 1709 at which was finished the earliest example known to me. For in the first decade of the eighteenth century Peter the Great gave attention to Russian relations with foreign states of Central Asia and negociated with the Khan of Bukhara for the reception of a Russian mission.²⁴ Political aims would be forwarded if envoys were familiar with Turki; books in that tongue for use in the School of Oriental Languages would be desired; thus the Compilation may have been prompted and, as will be shown later, it appears to have been produced, and not merely copied, in 1709. The Mission’s despatch was delayed till 1719;²⁵ it arrived in Bukhara in 1721; during its stay a member of its secretariat bought a Compilation MS. noted as finished in 1714 and on a fly-leaf of it made the following note: —

“I, Timur-pulad son of Mirza Rajab son of Pay-chin, bought this book Babur-nama after coming to Bukhara with [the] Russian Florio Beg Beneveni, envoy of the Padshah … whose army is numerous as the stars… May it be well received! Amen! O Lord of both Worlds!”

Timur-pulad’s hope for a good reception indicates a definite recipient, perhaps a commissioned purchase. The vendor may have been asked for a history of Babur; he sold one, but “Babur-nama” is not necessarily a title, and is not suitable for the Compilation; by conversational mischance it may have seemed so to the purchaser and thus have initiated the mistake of confusing the “Bukhara Babur-nama” with the true one.

Thus endorsed, the book in 1725 reached the Foreign Office; there in 1737 it was obtained by George Jacob Kehr, a teacher of Turki, amongst other languages, in the Oriental School, who copied it with meticulous care, understanding its meaning imperfectly, in order to produce a Latin version of it. His Latin rendering was a fiasco, but his reproduction of the Arabic forms of his archetype was so obedient that on its sole basis Ilminski edited the Kasan Imprint (1857). A collateral copy of the Timur-pulad Codex was made in 1742 (as has been said).

In 1824 Klaproth (who in 1810 had made a less valuable extract perhaps from Kehr’s Codex) copied from the Timur-pulad MS. its purchaser’s note, the Auzbeg?(?) endorsement as to the transfer of the “Kamran-docket” and Babur’s letter to Kamran (Mémoires relatifs à l’Asie Paris).

In 1857 Ilminski, working in Kasan, produced his imprint, which became de Courteille’s source for Les Mémoires de Baber in 1871. No worker in the above series shews doubt about accepting the Compilation as containing Babur’s authentic text. Ilminski was in the difficult position of not having entire reliance on Kehr’s transcription, a natural apprehension in face of the quality of the Latin version, his doubts sum up into his words that a reliable text could not be made from his source (Kehr’s MS.), but that a Turki reading-book could – and was. As has been said, he did not obey the dual plan of the Compilation Kehr’s transcript reveals, this, perhaps, because of the misnomer Babur-nama under which Timur-pulad’s Codex had come to Petrograd; this, certainly, because he thought a better history of Babur could be produced by following Erskine than by obeying Kehr – a series of errors following the verbal mischance of 1725. Ilminski’s transformation of the items of his source had the ill result of misleading Pavet de Courteille to over-estimate his Turki source at the expense of Erskine’s Persian one which, as has been said, was Ilminski’s guide – another scene in the comedy. A mischance hampering the French work was its falling to be done at a time when, in Paris 1871, there can have been no opportunity available for learning the contents of Ilminski’s Russian Preface or for quiet research and the examination of collateral aids from abroad.²⁶

The Author of the Compilation

The Haidarabad Codex having destroyed acquiescence in the phantasmal view of the Bukhara book, the question may be considered, who was its author?

This question a convergence of details about the Turki MSS. reputed to contain the Babur-nama, now allows me to answer with some semblance of truth. Those details have thrown new light upon a colophon which I received in 1900 from Mr. C. Salemann with other particulars concerning the “Senkovski Babur-nama,” this being an extract from the Compilation; its archetype reached Petrograd from Bukhara a century after Kehr’s [viz. the Timur-pulad Codex]; it can be taken as a direct copy of the Mulla’s original because it bears his colophon.²⁷ In 1900 I accepted it as merely that of a scribe who had copied Senkovski’s archetype, but in 1921 reviewing the colophon for this Preface, it seems to me to be that of the original autograph MS. of the Compilation and to tell its author’s name, his title for his book, and the year (1709) in which he completed it.

Table of Bukhara reputed-Babur-nama MSS. (Waqi‘nama-i-padshahi?).

Senkovski brought it over from his archetype; Mr. Salemann sent it to me in its original Turki form. (JRAS. 1900, p. 474). Senkovski’s own colophon is as follows: —

“J’ai achevé cette copie le 4 Mai, 1824, à St. Petersburg; elle a éte faite d’àpres un exemplaire appartenant à Nazar Bai Turkistani, négociant Boukhari, qui etait venu cette année à St. Petersburg. J. Senkovski.”

The colophon Senkovski copied from his archetype is to the following purport: —

“Known and entitled Waqi‘nama-i-padshahi (Record of Royal Acts), [this] autograph and composition (bayad u navisht) of Mulla ‘Abdu’l-wahhāb the Teacher, of Ghaj-davan in Bukhara – God pardon his mistakes and the weakness of his endeavour! – was finished on Monday, Rajab 5, 1121 (Aug. 31st, 1709).– Thank God!”

It will be observed that the title Waqi‘nama-i-padshahi suits the plan of dual histories (of Babur and Humayun) better than does the “Babur-nama” of Timur-pulad’s note, that the colophon does not claim for the Mulla to have copied the elder book (1494-1530) but to have written down and composed one under a differing title suiting its varied contents; that the Mulla’s deprecation and thanks tone better with perplexing work, such as his was, than with the steadfast patience of a good scribe; and that it exonerates the Mulla from suspicion of having caused his compilation to be accepted as Babur’s authentic text. Taken with its circumstanding matters, it may be the dénoument of the play.

Chapter IV.
THE LEYDEN AND ERSKINE MEMOIRS OF BABER

The fame and long literary services of the Memoirs of Baber compel me to explain why these volumes of mine contain a verbally new English translation of the Babur-nama instead of a second edition of the Memoirs. My explanation is the simple one of textual values, of the advantage a primary source has over its derivative, Babur’s original text over its Persian translation which alone was accessible to Erskine.

If the Babur-nama owed its perennial interest to its valuable multifarious matter, the Memoirs could suffice to represent it, but this it does not; what has kept interest in it alive through some four centuries is the autobiographic presentment of an arresting personality its whole manner, style and diction produce. It is characteristic throughout, from first to last making known the personal quality of its author. Obviously that quality has the better chance of surviving a transfer of Babur’s words to a foreign tongue when this can be effected by imitation of them. To effect this was impracticable to Erskine who did not see any example of the Turki text during the progress of his translation work and had little acquaintance with Turki. No blame attaches to his results; they have been the one introduction of Babur’s writings to English readers for almost a century; but it would be as sensible to expect a potter to shape a vessel for a specific purpose without a model as a translator of autobiography to shape the new verbal container for Babur’s quality without seeing his own. Erskine was the pioneer amongst European workers on Baburiana – Leyden’s fragment of unrevised attempt to translate the Bukhara Compilation being a negligible matter, notwithstanding friendship’s deference to it; he had ready to his hand no such valuable collateral help as he bequeathed to his successors in the Memoirs volume. To have been able to help in the renewal of his book by preparing a second edition of it, revised under the authority of the Haidarabad Codex, would have been to me an act of literary piety to an old book-friend; I experimented and failed in the attempt; the wording of the Memoirs would not press back into the Turki mould. Being what it is, sound in its matter and partly representative of Babur himself, the all-round safer plan, one doing it the greater honour, was to leave it unshorn of its redundance and unchanged in its wording, in the place of worth and dignity it has held so long.

Brought to this point by experiment and failure, the way lay open to make bee-line over intermediaries back to the fountain-head of re-discovered Turki text preserved in the Haidarabad Codex. Thus I have enjoyed an advantage no translator has had since ‘Abdu’r-rahim in 1589.

Concerning matters of style and diction, I may mention that three distinct impressions of Babur’s personality are set by his own, Erskine’s and de Courteille’s words and manner. These divergencies, while partly due to differing textual bases, may result mainly from the use by the two Europeans of unsifted, current English and French. Their portrayal might have been truer, there can be no doubt, if each had restricted himself to such under-lying component of his mother-tongue as approximates in linguistic stature to classic Turki. This probability Erskine could not foresee for, having no access during his work to a Turki source and no familiarity with Turki, he missed their lessoning.

Turki, as Babur writes it – terse, word-thrifty, restrained and lucid, – comes over neatly into Anglo-Saxon English, perhaps through primal affinities. Studying Babur’s writings in verbal detail taught me that its structure, idiom and vocabulary dictate a certain mechanism for a translator’s imitation. Such are the simple sentence, devoid of relative phrasing, copied in the form found, whether abrupt and brief or, ranging higher with the topic, gracious and dignified – the retention of Babur’s use of “we” and “I” and of his frequent impersonal statement – the matching of words by their root-notion – the strict observance of Babur’s limits of vocabulary, effected by allotting to one Turki word one English equivalent, thus excluding synonyms for which Turki has little use because not shrinking from the repeated word; lastly, as preserving relations of diction, the replacing of Babur’s Arabic and Persian aliens by Greek and Latin ones naturalized in English. Some of these aids towards shaping a counterpart of Turki may be thought small, but they obey a model and their aggregate has power to make or mar a portrait.

(1) Of the uses of pronouns it may be said that Babur’s “we” is neither regal nor self-magnifying but is co-operative, as beseems the chief whose volunteer and nomad following makes or unmakes his power, and who can lead and command only by remittent consent accorded to him. His “I” is individual. The Memoirs varies much from these uses.

(2) The value of reproducing impersonal statements is seen by the following example, one of many similar: – When Babur and a body of men, making a long saddle-journey, halted for rest and refreshment by the road-side; “There was drinking,” he writes, but Erskine, “I drank”; what is likely being that all or all but a few shared the local vin du pays.

(3) The importance of observing Babur’s limits of vocabulary needs no stress, since any man of few words differs from any man of many. Measured by the Babur-nama standard, the diction of the Memoirs is redundant throughout, and frequently over-coloured. Of this a pertinent example is provided by a statement of which a minimum of seven occurrences forms my example, namely, that such or such a man whose life Babur sketches was vicious or a vicious person (fisq, fāsiq). Erskine once renders the word by “vicious” but elsewhere enlarges to “debauched, excess of sensual enjoyment, lascivious, libidinous, profligate, voluptuous”. The instances are scattered and certainly Erskine could not feel their collective effect, but even scattered, each does its ill-part in distorting the Memoirs portraiture of the man of the one word.²⁸

Postscript of Thanks

I take with gratitude the long-delayed opportunity of finishing my book to express the obligation I feel to the Council of the Royal Asiatic Society for allowing me to record in the Journal my Notes on the Turki Codices of the Babur-nama begun in 1900 and occasionally appearing till 1921. In minor convenience of work, to be able to gather those progressive notes together and review them, has been of value to me in noticeable matters, two of which are the finding and multiplying of the Haidarabad Codex, and the definite clearance of the confusion which had made the Bukhara (reputed) Babur-nama be mistaken for a reproduction of Babur’s true text.

Immeasurable indeed is the obligation laid on me by the happy community of interests which brought under our roof the translation of the biographies of Babur, Humayun, and Akbar. What this has meant to my own work may be surmised by those who know my husband’s wide reading in many tongues of East and West, his retentive memory and his generous communism in knowledge. One signal cause for gratitude to him from those caring for Baburiana, is that it was he made known the presence of the Haidarabad Codex in its home library (1899) and thus led to its preservation in facsimile.

It would be impracticable to enumerate all whose help I keep in grateful memory and realize as the fruit of the genial camaraderie of letters.

Annette S. Beveridge.

Pitfold, Shottermill, Haslemere.

August, 1921.

SECTION I. FARGHĀNA

AH. – Oct. 12th 1493 to Oct. 2nd 1494 AD

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

In²⁹ the month of Ramẓān of the year 899 (June 1494) and in the twelfth year of my age,³⁰ I became ruler³¹ in the country of Farghāna.

(a. Description of Farghāna.)

Farghāna is situated in the fifth climate³² and at the limit of settled habitation. On the east it has Kāshghar; on the west, Samarkand; on the south, the mountains of the Badakhshān border; on the north, though in former times there must have been towns such as Ālmālīgh, Ālmātū and Yāngī which in books they write Tarāz,³³ at the present time all is desolate, no settled population whatever remaining, because of the Mughūls and the Aūzbegs.³⁴

Farghāna is a small country,³⁵ abounding in grain and fruits. It is girt round by mountains except on the west, i. e. towards Khujand and Samarkand, and in winter³⁶ an enemy can enter only on that side.

The Saiḥūn River (daryā) commonly known as the Water of Khujand, comes into the country from the north-east, flows westward through it and after passing along the north of Khujand and the south of Fanākat,³⁷ now known as Shāhrukhiya, turns directly north and goes to Turkistān. It does not join any sea³⁸ but sinks into the sands, a considerable distance below [the town of] Turkistān.

Farghāna has seven separate townships,³⁹ five on the south and two on the north of the Saiḥūn.

Of those on the south, one is Andijān. It has a central position and is the capital of the Farghāna country. It produces much grain, fruits in abundance, excellent grapes and melons. In the melon season, it is not customary to sell them out at the beds.⁴⁰ Better than the Andijān nāshpātī,⁴¹ there is none. After Samarkand and Kesh, the fort⁴² of Andijān is the largest in Mawārā’u’n-nahr (Transoxiana). It has three gates. Its citadel (ark) is on its south side. Into it water goes by nine channels; out of it, it is strange that none comes at even a single place.⁴³ Round the outer edge of the ditch⁴⁴ runs a gravelled highway; the width of this highway divides the fort from the suburbs surrounding it.

Andijān has good hunting and fowling; its pheasants grow so surprisingly fat that rumour has it four people could not finish one they were eating with its stew.⁴⁵

Andijānīs are all Turks, not a man in town or bāzār but knows Turkī. The speech of the people is correct for the pen; hence the writings of Mīr ‘Alī-shīr Nawā’ī,⁴⁶ though he was bred and grew up in Hīrī (Harāt), are one with their dialect. Good looks are common amongst them. The famous musician, Khwāja Yūsuf, was an Andijānī.⁴⁷ The climate is malarious; in autumn people generally get fever.⁴⁸

Again, there is Aūsh (Ūsh), to the south-east, inclining to east, of Andijān and distant from it four yīghāch by road.⁴⁹ It has a fine climate, an abundance of running waters⁵⁰ and a most beautiful spring season. Many traditions have their rise in its excellencies.⁵¹ To the south-east of the walled town (qūrghān) lies a symmetrical mountain, known as the Barā Koh;⁵² on the top of this, Sl. Maḥmūd Khān built a retreat (ḥajra) and lower down, on its shoulder, I, in 902AH. (1496AD.) built another, having a porch. Though his lies the higher, mine is the better placed, the whole of the town and the suburbs being at its foot.

The Andijān torrent⁵³ goes to Andijān after having traversed the suburbs of Aūsh. Orchards (bāghāt)⁵⁴ lie along both its banks; all the Aūsh gardens (bāghlār) overlook it; their violets are very fine; they have running waters and in spring are most beautiful with the blossoming of many tulips and roses.

On the skirt of the Barā-koh is a mosque called the Jauza Masjid (Twin Mosque).⁵⁵ Between this mosque and the town, a great main canal flows from the direction of the hill. Below the outer court of the mosque lies a shady and delightful clover-meadow where every passing traveller takes a rest. It is the joke of the ragamuffins of Aūsh to let out water from the canal⁵⁶ on anyone happening to fall asleep in the meadow. A very beautiful stone, waved red and white⁵⁷ was found in the Barā Koh in ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s latter days; of it are made knife handles, and clasps for belts and many other things. For climate and for pleasantness, no township in all Farghāna equals Aūsh.

Again there is Marghīnān; seven yīghāch⁵⁸ by road to the west of Andijān, – a fine township full of good things. Its apricots (aūrūk) and pomegranates are most excellent. One sort of pomegranate, they call the Great Seed (Dāna-i-kalān); its sweetness has a little of the pleasant flavour of the small apricot (zard-alū) and it may be thought better than the Semnān pomegranate. Another kind of apricot (aūrūk) they dry after stoning it and putting back the kernel;⁵⁹ they then call it subḥānī; it is very palatable. The hunting and fowling of Marghīnān are good; āq kīyīk⁶⁰ are had close by. Its people are Sārts,⁶¹ boxers, noisy and turbulent. Most of the noted bullies (jangralār) of Samarkand and Bukhārā are Marghīnānīs. The author of the Hidāyat⁶² was from Rashdān, one of the villages of Marghīnān.

Again there is Asfara, in the hill-country and nine yīghāch⁶³ by road south-west of Marghīnān. It has running waters, beautiful little gardens (bāghcha) and many fruit-trees but almonds for the most part in its orchards. Its people are all Persian-speaking⁶⁴ Sārts. In the hills some two miles (bīrshar‘ī) to the south of the town, is a piece of rock, known as the Mirror Stone.⁶⁵ It is some 10 arm-lengths (qārī) long, as high as a man in parts, up to his waist in others. Everything is reflected by it as by a mirror. The Asfara district (wilāyat) is in four subdivisions (balūk) in the hill-country, one Asfara, one Warūkh, one Sūkh and one Hushyār. When Muḥammad Shaibānī Khān defeated Sl. Maḥmūd Khān and Alacha Khān and took Tāshkīnt and Shāhrukhiya,⁶⁶ I went into the Sūkh and Hushyār hill-country and from there, after about a year spent in great misery, I set out (‘azīmat) for Kābul.⁶⁷

Again there is Khujand,⁶⁸ twenty-five yīghāch by road to the west of Andijān and twenty-five yīghāch east of Samarkand.⁶⁹ Khujand is one of the ancient towns; of it were Shaikh Maṣlaḥat and Khwāja Kamāl.⁷⁰ Fruit grows well there; its pomegranates are renowned for their excellence; people talk of a Khujand pomegranate as they do of a Samarkand apple; just now however, Marghīnān pomegranates are much met with.⁷¹ The walled town (qūrghān) of Khujand stands on high ground; the Saiḥūn River flows past it on the north at the distance, may be, of an arrow’s flight.⁷² To the north of both the town and the river lies a mountain range called Munūghul;⁷³ people say there are turquoise and other mines in it and there are many snakes. The hunting and fowling-grounds of Khujand are first-rate; āq kīyīk,⁷⁴ būghū-marāl,⁷⁵ pheasant and hare are all had in great plenty. The climate is very malarious; in autumn there is much fever;⁷⁶ people rumour it about that the very sparrows get fever and say that the cause of the malaria is the mountain range on the north (i. e. Munūghul).

Kand-i-badām (Village of the Almond) is a dependency of Khujand; though it is not a township (qaṣba) it is rather a good approach to one (qaṣbacha). Its almonds are excellent, hence its name; they all go to Hormuz or to Hindūstān. It is five or six yīghāch⁷⁷ east of Khujand.

Between Kand-i-badām and Khujand lies the waste known as Hā Darwesh. In this there is always (hamesha) wind; from it wind goes always (hameshā) to Marghīnān on its east; from it wind comes continually (dā’im) to Khujand on its west.⁷⁸ It has violent, whirling winds. People say that some darweshes, encountering a whirlwind in this desert,⁷⁹ lost one another and kept crying, “Hāy Darwesh! Hāy Darwesh!” till all had perished, and that the waste has been called Hā Darwesh ever since.

Of the townships on the north of the Saiḥūn River one is Akhsī. In books they write it Akhsīkīt⁸⁰ and for this reason the poet As̤iru-d-dīn is known as Akhsīkītī. After Andijān no township in Farghāna is larger than Akhsī. It is nine yīghāch⁸¹ by road to the west of Andijān. ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā made it his capital.⁸² The Saiḥūn River flows below its walled town (qūrghān). This stands above a great ravine (buland jar) and it has deep ravines (‘uṃiq jarlār) in place of a moat. When ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā made it his capital, he once or twice cut other ravines from the outer ones. In all Farghāna no fort is so strong as Akhsī. *Its suburbs extend some two miles further than the walled town.* People seem to have made of Akhsī the saying (mis̤al), “Where is the village? Where are the trees?” (Dih kujā? Dirakhtān kujā?) Its melons are excellent; they call one kind Mīr Tīmūrī; whether in the world there is another to equal it is not known. The melons of Bukhārā are famous; when I took Samarkand, I had some brought from there and some from Akhsī; they were cut up at an entertainment and nothing from Bukhārā compared with those from Akhsī. The fowling and hunting of Akhsī are very good indeed; āq kīyīk abound in the waste on the Akhsī side of the Saihūn; in the jungle on the Andijān side būghū-marāl,⁸³ pheasant and hare are had, all in very good condition.

Again there is Kāsān, rather a small township to the north of Akhsī. From Kāsān the Akhsī water comes in the same way as the Andijān water comes from Aūsh. Kāsān has excellent air and beautiful little gardens (bāghcha). As these gardens all lie along the bed of the torrent (sā’ī) people call them the “fine front of the coat.”⁸⁴ Between Kāsānīs and Aūshīs there is rivalry about the beauty and climate of their townships.

In the mountains round Farghāna are excellent summer-pastures (yīlāq). There, and nowhere else, the tabalghū⁸⁵grows, a tree (yīghāch) with red bark; they make staves of it; they make bird-cages of it; they scrape it into arrows;⁸⁶ it is an excellent wood (yīghāch) and is carried as a rarity⁸⁷ to distant places. Some books write that the mandrake⁸⁸ is found in these mountains but for this long time past nothing has been heard of it. A plant called Āyīq aūtī⁸⁹ and having the qualities of the mandrake (mihr-giyāh), is heard of in Yītī-kīnt;⁹⁰ it seems to be the mandrake (mihr-giyāh) the people there call by this name (i. e. āyīq aūtī). There are turquoise and iron mines in these mountains.

If people do justly, three or four thousand men⁹¹ may be maintained by the revenues of Farghāna.

(b. Historical narrative resumed.)⁹²

As ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā was a ruler of high ambition and great pretension, he was always bent on conquest. On several occasions he led an army against Samarkand; sometimes he was beaten, sometimes retired against his will.⁹³ More than once he asked his father-in-law into the country, that is to say, my grandfather, Yūnas Khān, the then Khān of the Mughūls in the camping ground (yūrt) of his ancestor, Chaghatāī Khān, the second son of Chīngīz Khān. Each time the Mīrzā brought The Khān into the Farghāna country he gave him lands, but, partly owing to his misconduct, partly to the thwarting of the Mughūls,⁹⁴ things did not go as he wished and Yūnas Khān, not being able to remain, went out again into Mughūlistān. When the Mīrzā last brought The Khān in, he was in possession of

Tāshkīnt, which in books they write Shash, and sometimes Chāch, whence the term, a Chāchī, bow.⁹⁵ He gave it to The Khān, and from that date (890AH. -1485AD.) down to 908AH. (1503AD.) it and the Shāhrukhiya country were held by the Chaghatāī Khāns.

At this date (i. e., 899AH. -1494AD.) the Mughūl Khānship was in Sl. Maḥ=mūd Khān, Yūnas Khān’s younger son and a half-brother of my mother. As he and ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s elder brother, the then ruler of Samarkand, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā were offended by the Mīrzā’s behaviour, they came to an agreement together; Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā had already given a daughter to Sl. Maḥmūd Khān;⁹⁶ both now led their armies against ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā, the first advancing along the south of the Khujand Water, the second along its north.

Meantime a strange event occurred. It has been mentioned that the fort of Akhsī is situated above a deep ravine;⁹⁷ along this ravine stand the palace buildings, and from it, on Monday, Ramẓān 4, (June 8th.) ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā flew, with his pigeons and their house, and became a falcon.⁹⁸

He was 39 (lunar) years old, having been born in Samarkand, in 860AH. (1456AD.) He was Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā’s fourth son,⁹⁹ being younger than Sl. Aḥmad M. and Sl. Muḥammad M. and Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā. His father, Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā, was the son of Sl. Muḥammad Mīrzā, son of Tīmūr Beg’s third son, Mīrān-shāh M. and was younger than ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā, (the elder) and Jahāngīr M. but older than Shāhrukh Mīrzā.

c. ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s country.

His father first gave him Kābul and, with Bābā-i-Kābulī¹⁰⁰ for his guardian, had allowed him to set out, but recalled him from the Tamarisk Valley¹⁰¹ to Samarkand, on account of the Mīrzās’ Circumcision Feast. When the Feast was over, he gave him Andijān with the appropriateness that Tīmūr Beg had given Farghāna (Andijān) to his son, the elder ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā. This done, he sent him off with Khudāī-bīrdī Tūghchī Tīmūr-tāsh¹⁰² for his guardian.

d. His appearance and characteristics.

He was a short and stout, round-bearded and fleshy-faced person.¹⁰³ He used to wear his tunic so very tight that to fasten the strings he had to draw his belly in and, if he let himself out after tying them, they often tore away. He was not choice in dress or food. He wound his turban in a fold (dastar-pech); all turbans were in four folds (chār-pech) in those days; people wore them without twisting and let the ends hang down.¹⁰⁴ In the heats and except in his Court, he generally wore the Mughūl cap.

e. His qualities and habits.

He was a true believer (Ḥanafī maẕhablīk) and pure in the Faith, not neglecting the Five Prayers and, his life through, making up his Omissions.¹⁰⁵ He read the Qur’ān very frequently and was a disciple of his Highness Khwāja ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh (Aḥrārī) who honoured him by visits and even called him son. His current readings¹⁰⁶ were the two Quintets and the Mas̤nawī;¹⁰⁷ of histories he read chiefly the Shāh-nāma. He had a poetic nature, but no taste for composing verses. He was so just that when he heard of a caravan returning from Khitāī as overwhelmed by snow in the mountains of Eastern Andijān,¹⁰⁸ and that of its thousand heads of houses (awīlūq) two only had escaped, he sent his overseers to take charge of all goods and, though no heirs were near and though he was in want himself, summoned the heirs from Khurāsān and Samarkand, and in the course of a year or two had made over to them all their property safe and sound.

He was very generous; in truth, his character rose altogether to the height of generosity. He was affable, eloquent and sweet-spoken, daring and bold. Twice out-distancing all his braves,¹⁰⁹ he got to work with his own sword, once at the Gate of Akhsī, once at the Gate of Shāhrukhiya. A middling archer, he was strong in the fist, – not a man but fell to his blow. Through his ambition, peace was exchanged often for war, friendliness for hostility.

In his early days he was a great drinker, later on used to have a party once or twice a week. He was good company, on occasions reciting verses admirably. Towards the last he rather preferred intoxicating confects¹¹⁰ and, under their sway, used to lose his head. His disposition¹¹¹ was amorous, and he bore many a lover’s mark.¹¹² He played draughts a good deal, sometimes even threw the dice.

f. His battles and encounters.

He fought three ranged battles, the first with Yūnas Khān, on the Saiḥūn, north of Andijān, at the Goat-leap,¹¹³ a village so-called because near it the foot-hills so narrow the flow of the water that people say goats leap across.¹¹⁴ There he was beaten and made prisoner. Yūnas Khān for his part did well by him and gave him leave to go to his own district (Andijān). This fight having been at that place, the Battle of the Goat-leap became a date in those parts.

His second battle was fought on the Urūs,¹¹⁵ in Turkistān, with Aūzbegs returning from a raid near Samarkand. He crossed the river on the ice, gave them a good beating, separated off all their prisoners and booty and, without coveting a single thing for himself, gave everything back to its owners.

His third battle he fought with (his brother) Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā at a place between Shāhrukhiya and Aūrā-tīpā, named Khwāṣ.¹¹⁶ Here he was beaten.

g. His country.

The Farghāna country his father had given him; Tāshkīnt and Sairām, his elder brother, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā gave, and they were in his possession for a time; Shāhrukhiya he took by a ruse and held awhile. Later on, Tāshkīnt and Shāhrukhiya passed out of his hands; there then remained the Farghāna country and Khujand, – some do not include Khujand in Farghāna, – and Aūrā-tīpā, of which the original name was Aūrūshnā and which some call Aūrūsh. In Aūrā-tīpā, at the time Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā went to Tāshkīnt against the Mughūls, and was beaten on the Chīr¹¹⁷ (893AH. -1488AD.) was Ḥafiẓ Beg Dūldāī; he made it over to ‘Umar Shaikh M. and the Mīrzā held it from that time forth.

h. His children.

Three of his sons and five of his daughters grew up. I, Z̤ahīru’d-dīn Muḥammad Bābur,¹¹⁸ was his eldest son; my mother was Qūtlūq-nigār Khānīm. Jahāngīr Mīrzā was his second son, two years younger than I; his mother, Fāt̤ima-sult̤ān by name, was of the Mughūl tūmān-begs.¹¹⁹ Nāṣir Mīrzā was his third son; his mother was an Andijānī, a mistress,¹²⁰ named Umīd. He was four years younger than I.

‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s eldest daughter was Khān-zāda Begīm,¹²¹ my full sister, five years older than I. The second time I took Samarkand (905AH. -1500AD.), spite of defeat at Sar-i-pul,¹²² I went back and held it through a five months’ siege, but as no sort of help or reinforcement came from any beg or ruler thereabouts, I left it in despair and got away; in that throneless time (fatrat) Khān-zāda Begīm fell¹²³ to Muḥammad Shaibānī Khān. She had one child by him, a pleasant boy,¹²⁴ named Khurram Shāh. The Balkh country was given to him; he went to God’s mercy a few years after the death of his father (916AH. -1510AD.). Khān-zāda Begīm was in Merv when Shāh Ismā‘īl (Ṣafawī) defeated the Aūzbegs near that town (916AH. -1510AD.); for my sake he treated her well, giving her a sufficient escort to Qūndūz where she rejoined me. We had been apart for some ten years; when Muḥammadī kūkūldāsh and I went to see her, neither she nor those about her knew us, although I spoke. They recognized us after a time.

Mihr-bānū Begīm was another daughter, Nāṣir Mīrzā’s full-sister, two years younger than I. Shahr-bānū Begīm was another, also Nāṣir Mīrzā’s full-sister, eight years younger than I. Yādgār-sult̤ān Begīm was another, her mother was a mistress, called Āghā-sult̤ān. Ruqaiya-sult̤ān Begīm was another; her mother, Makhdūm-sult̤ān Begīm, people used to call the Dark-eyed Begīm. The last-named two were born after the Mīrzā’s death. Yādgār-sult̤ān Begīm was brought up by my grandmother, Aīsān-daulat Begīm; she fell to ‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf Sl., a son of Ḥamza Sl. when Shaibānī Khān took Andijān and Akhsī (908AH. -1503AD.). She rejoined me when (917AH. -1511AD.) in Khutlān I defeated Ḥamza Sl. and other sult̤āns and took Ḥiṣār. Ruqaiya-sult̤ān Begīm fell in that same throneless time (fatrat) to Jānī Beg Sl. (Aūzbeg). By him she had one or two children who did not live. In these days of our leisure (furṣatlār)¹²⁵ has come news that she has gone to God’s mercy.

i. His ladies and mistresses.

Qūtlūq-nigār Khānīm was the second daughter of Yūnas Khān and the eldest (half-) sister of Sl. Maḥmūd Khān and Sl. Aḥmad Khān.

(j. Interpolated account of Bābur’s mother’s family.)

Yūnas Khān descended from Chaghatāī Khān, the second son of Chīngīz Khān (as follows,) Yūnas Khān, son of Wais Khān, son of Sher-‘alī Aūghlān, son of Muḥammad Khān, son of Khiẓr Khwāja Khān, son of Tūghlūq-tīmūr Khān, son of Aīsān-būghā Khān, son of Dāwā Khān, son of Barāq Khān, son of Yīsūntawā Khān, son of Mūātūkān, son of Chaghatāī Khān, son of Chīngīz Khān.

Since such a chance has come, set thou down¹²⁶ now a summary of the history of the Khāns.

Yūnas Khān (d. 892 AH. -1487 AD.) and Aīsān-būghā Khān (d. 866 AH. -1462 AD.) were sons of Wais Khān (d. 832 AH. -1428 AD.).¹²⁷ Yūnas Khān’s mother was either a daughter or a grand-daughter of Shaikh Nūru’d-dīn Beg, a Turkistānī Qīpchāq favoured by Tīmūr Beg. When Wais Khān died, the Mughūl horde split in two, one portion being for Yūnas Khān, the greater for Aīsān-būghā Khān. For help in getting the upper hand in the horde, Aīrzīn (var. Aīrāzān) one of the Bārīn tūmān-begs and Beg Mīrik Turkmān, one of the Chīrās tūmān-begs, took Yūnas Khān (aet. 13) and with him three or four thousand Mughūl heads of houses (awīlūq), to Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā (Shāhrukhī) with the fittingness that Aūlūgh Beg M. had taken Yūnas Khān’s elder sister for his son, ‘Abdu’l-‘azīz Mīrzā. Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā did not do well by them; some he imprisoned, some scattered over the country¹²⁸ one by one. The Dispersion of Aīrzīn became a date in the Mughūl horde.

Yūnas Khān himself was made to go towards ‘Irāq; one year he spent in Tabrīz where Jahān Shāh Barānī of the Black Sheep Turkmāns was ruling. From Tabrīz he went to Shīrāz where was Shāhrukh Mīrzā’s second son, Ibrāhīm Sult̤ān Mīrzā.¹²⁹ He having died five or six months later (Shawwal 4, 838 AH. – May 3rd, 1435 AD.), his son, ‘Abdu’l-lāh Mīrzā sat in his place. Of this ‘Abdu’l-lāh Mīrzā Yūnas Khān became a retainer and to him used to pay his respects. The Khān was in those parts for 17 or 18 years.

In the disturbances between Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā and his sons, Aīsān-būghā Khān found a chance to invade Farghāna; he plundered as far as Kand-i-badām, came on and, having plundered Andijān, led all its people into captivity.¹³⁰ Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā, after seizing the throne of Samarkand, led an army out to beyond Yāngī (Tarāz) to Aspara in Mughūlistān, there gave Aīsān-būghā a good beating and then, to spare himself further trouble from him and with the fittingness that he had just taken to wife¹³¹ Yūnas Khān’s elder sister, the former wife of ‘Abdu’l-‘azīz Mīrzā (Shāhrukhī), he invited Yūnas Khān from Khurāsān and ‘Irāq, made a feast, became friends and proclaimed him Khān of the Mughūls. Just when he was speeding him forth, the Sāghārīchī tūmān-begs had all come into Mughūlistān, in anger with Aīsān-būghā Khān.¹³² Yūnas Khān went amongst them and took to wife Aīsān-daulat Begīm, the daughter of their chief, ‘Alī-shīr Beg. They then seated him and her on one and the same white felt and raised him to the Khānship.¹³³

By this Aīsān-daulat Begīm, Yūnas Khān had three daughters. Mihr-nigār Khānīm was the eldest; Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā set her aside¹³⁴ for his eldest son, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā; she had no child. In a throneless time (905 AH.) she fell to Shaibānī Khān; she left Samarkand¹³⁵ with Shāh Begīm for Khurāsān (907 AH.) and both came on to me in Kābul (911 AH.). At the time Shaibānī Khān was besieging Nāṣir Mīrzā in Qandahār and I set out for Lamghān¹³⁶ (913 AH.) they went to Badakhshān with Khān Mīrzā (Wais).¹³⁷ When Mubārak Shāh invited Khān Mīrzā into Fort Victory,¹³⁸ they were captured, together with the wives and families of all their people, by marauders of Ābā-bikr Kāshgharī and, as captives to that ill-doing miscreant, bade farewell to this transitory world (circa 913 AH. -1507 AD.).

Qūtlūq-nigār Khānīm, my mother, was Yūnas Khān’s second daughter. She was with me in most of my guerilla expeditions and throneless times. She went to God’s mercy in Muḥarram 911 AH. (June 1505 AD.) five or six months after the capture of Kābul.

Khūb-nigār Khānīm was his third daughter. Her they gave to Muḥammad Ḥusain Kūrkān Dūghlāt (899 AH.). She had one son and one daughter by him. ‘Ubaid Khān (Aūzbeg) took the daughter (Ḥabība).¹³⁹ When I captured Samarkand and Bukhārā (917 AH. -1511 AD.), she stayed behind,¹⁴⁰ and when her paternal uncle, Sayyid Muḥammad Dūghlāt came as Sl. Sa‘īd Khān’s envoy to me in Samarkand, she joined him and with him went to Kāshghar where (her cousin), Sl. Sa‘īd Khān took her. Khūb-nigār’s son was Ḥaidar Mīrzā.¹⁴¹ He was in my service for three or four years after the Aūzbegs slew his father, then (918 AH. -1512 AD.) asked leave to go to Kāshghar to the presence of Sl. Sa‘īd Khān.

“Everything goes back to its source.

Pure gold, or silver or tin.”¹⁴²

People say he now lives lawfully (tā’ib) and has found the right way (t̤arīqā).¹⁴³ He has a hand deft in everything, penmanship and painting, and in making arrows and arrow-barbs and string-grips; moreover he is a born poet and in a petition written to me, even his style is not bad.¹⁴⁴

Shāh Begīm was another of Yūnas Khān’s ladies. Though he had more, she and Aīsān-daulat Begīm were the mothers of his children. She was one of the (six) daughters of Shāh Sult̤ān Muḥammad, Shāh of Badakhshān.¹⁴⁵ His line, they say, runs back to Iskandar Fīlkūs.¹⁴⁶ Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā took another daughter and by her had Ābā-bikr Mīrzā.¹⁴⁷ By this Shāh Begīm Yūnas Khān had two sons and two daughters. Her first-born but younger than all Aīsān-daulat Begīm’s daughters, was Sl. Maḥmūd Khān, called Khānika Khān¹⁴⁸ by many in and about Samarkand. Next younger than he was Sl. Aḥmad Khān, known as Alacha Khān. People say he was called this because he killed many Qālmāqs on the several occasions he beat them. In the Mughūl and Qālmāq tongues, one who will kill (aūltūrgūchī) is called ālāchī; Alāchī they called him therefore and this by repetition, became Alacha.¹⁴⁹ As occasion arises, the acts and circumstances of these two Khāns will find mention in this history (tārīkh).

Sult̤ān-nigār Khānīm was the youngest but one of Yūnas Khān’s children. Her they made go forth (chīqārīb īdīlār) to Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā; by him she had one child, Sl. Wais (Khān Mīrzā), mention of whom will come into this history. When Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā died (900 AH. -1495 AD.), she took her son off to her brothers in Tāshkīnt without a word to any single person. They, a few years later, gave her to Adik (Aūng) Sult̤ān,¹⁵⁰ a Qāzāq sult̤ān of the line of Jūjī Khān, Chīngīz Khān’s eldest son. When Shaibānī Khān defeated the Khāns (her brothers), and took Tāshkīnt and Shāhrukhiya (908 AH.), she got away with 10 or 12 of her Mughūl servants, to (her husband), Adik Sult̤ān. She had two daughters by Adik Sult̤ān; one she gave to a Shaibān sult̤ān, the other to Rashīd Sult̤ān, the son of (her cousin) Sl. Sa‘īd Khān. After Adik Sult̤ān’s death, (his brother), Qāsim Khān, Khān of the Qāzāq horde, took her.¹⁵¹ Of all the Qāzāq khāns and sult̤āns, no one, they say, ever kept the horde in such good order as he; his army was reckoned at 300,000 men. On his death the Khānīm went to Sl. Sa‘īd Khān’s presence in Kāshghar. Daulat-sult̤ān Khānīm was Yūnas Khān’s youngest child. In the Tāshkīnt disaster (908 AH.) she fell to Tīmūr Sult̤ān, the son of Shaibānī Khān. By him she had one daughter; they got out of Samarkand with me (918 AH. -1512 AD.), spent three or four years in the Badakhshān country, then went (923 AH. -1420 AD.) to Sl. Sa‘īd Khān’s presence in Kāshghar.¹⁵²

(k. Account resumed of Bābur’s father’s family.)

In ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s ḥaram was also Aūlūs Āghā, a daughter of Khwāja Ḥusain Beg; her one daughter died in infancy and they sent her out of the ḥaram a year or eighteen months later. Fāt̤ima-sult̤ān Āghā was another; she was of the Mughūl tūmān-begs and the first taken of his wives. Qarāgūz (Makhdūm sult̤ān) Begīm was another; the Mīrzā took her towards the end of his life; she was much beloved, so to please him, they made her out descended from (his uncle) Minūchihr Mīrzā, the elder brother of Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā. He had many mistresses and concubines; one, Umīd Āghāchā died before him. Latterly there were also Tūn-sult̤ān (var. Yun) of the Mughūls and Āghā Sult̤ān.

l. ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s Amīrs.

There was Khudāī-bīrdī Tūghchī Tīmūr-tāsh, a descendant of the brother of Āq-būghā Beg, the Governor of Hīrī (Herāt, for Tīmūr Beg.) When Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā, after besieging Jūkī Mīrzā (Shāhrukhī) in Shāhrukhiya (868AH. -1464AD.) gave the Farghāna country to ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā, he put this Khudāī-bīrdī Beg at the head of the Mīrzā’s Gate.¹⁵³ Khudāī-bīrdī was then 25 but youth notwithstanding, his rules and management were very good indeed. A few years later when Ibrāhīm Begchīk was plundering near Aūsh, he followed him up, fought him, was beaten and became a martyr. At the time, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā was in the summer pastures of Āq Qāchghāī, in Aūrā-tīpā, 18 yīghāch east of Samarkand, and Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā was at Bābā Khākī, 12 yīghāch east of Hīrī. People sent the news post-haste to the Mīrzā(s),¹⁵⁴ having humbly represented it through ‘Abdu’l-wahhāb Shaghāwal. In four days it was carried those 120 yīghāch of road.¹⁵⁵

Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad Beg Dūldāī was another, Sl. Malik Kāshgharī’s son and a younger brother of Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg. After the death of Khudāī-bīrdī Beg, they sent him to control ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s Gate, but he did not get on well with the Andijān begs and therefore, when Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā died, went to Samarkand and took service with Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā. At the time of the disaster on the Chīr, he was in Aūrā-tīpā and made it over to ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā when the Mīrzā passed through on his way to Samarkand, himself taking service with him. The Mīrzā, for his part, gave him the Andijān Command. Later on he went to Sl. Maḥmūd Khān in Tāshkīnt and was there entrusted with the guardianship of Khān Mīrzā (Wais) and given Dīzak. He had started for Makka by way of Hind before I took Kābul (910AH. Oct. 1504AD.), but he went to God’s mercy on the road. He was a simple person, of few words and not clever.

Khwāja Ḥusain Beg was another, a good-natured and simple person. It is said that, after the fashion of those days, he used to improvise very well at drinking parties.¹⁵⁶

Shaikh Mazīd Beg was another, my first guardian, excellent in rule and method. He must have served (khidmat qīlghān dūr) under Bābur Mīrzā (Shāhrukhī). There was no greater beg in ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s presence. He was a vicious person and kept catamites.

‘Alī-mazīd Qūchīn was another;¹⁵⁷ he rebelled twice, once at Akhsī, once at Tāshkīnt. He was disloyal, untrue to his salt, vicious and good-for-nothing.

Ḥasan (son of) Yaq‘ūb was another, a small-minded, good-tempered, smart and active man. This verse is his: —

“Return, O Huma, for without the parrot-down of thy lip,

The crow will assuredly soon carry off my bones.”¹⁵⁸

He was brave, a good archer, played polo (chaughān) well and leapt well at leap-frog.¹⁵⁹ He had the control of my Gate after ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s accident. He had not much sense, was narrow-minded and somewhat of a strife-stirrer.

Qāsim Beg Qūchīn, of the ancient army-begs of Andijān, was another. He had the control of my Gate after Ḥasan Yaq‘ūb Beg. His life through, his authority and consequence waxed without decline. He was a brave man; once he gave some Aūzbegs a good beating when he overtook them raiding near Kāsān; his sword hewed away in ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s presence; and in the fight at the Broad Ford (Yāsī-kījīt circa 904AH. – July, 1499AD.) he hewed away with the rest. In the guerilla days he went to Khusrau Shāh (907AH.) at the time I was planning to go from the Macha hill-country¹⁶⁰ to Sl. Maḥmūd Khān, but he came back to me in 910AH. (1504AD.) and I shewed him all my old favour and affection. When I attacked the Turkmān Hazāra raiders in Dara-i-khwush (911AH.) he made better advance, spite of his age, than the younger men; I gave him Bangash as a reward and later on, after returning to Kābul, made him Humāyūn’s guardian. He went to God’s mercy about the time Zamīn-dāwar was taken (circa 928AH. -1522AD.). He was a pious, God-fearing Musalmān, an abstainer from doubtful aliments; excellent in judgment and counsel, very facetious and, though he could neither read nor write (ummiy), used to make entertaining jokes.

Bābā Beg’s Bābā Qulī (‘Alī) was another, a descendant of Shaikh ‘Alī Bahādur.¹⁶¹ They made him my guardian when Shaikh Mazīd Beg died. He went over to Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā when the Mīrzā led his army against Andijān (899AH.), and gave him Aūrā-tīpā. After Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā’s death, he left Samarkand and was on his way to join me (900AH.) when Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā, issuing out of Aūrā-tīpā, fought, defeated and slew him. His management and equipment were excellent and he took good care of his men. He prayed not; he kept no fasts; he was like a heathen and he was a tyrant.

‘Alī-dost T̤aghāī¹⁶² was another, one of the Sāghārīchī tumān-begs and a relation of my mother’s mother, Aīsān-daulat Begīm. I favoured him more than he had been favoured in ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s time. People said, “Work will come from his hand.” But in the many years he was in my presence, no work to speak of¹⁶³ came to sight. He must have served Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā. He claimed to have power to bring on rain with the jade-stone. He was the Falconer (qūshchī),worthless by nature and habit, a stingy, severe, strife-stirring person, false, self-pleasing, rough of tongue and cold-of-face.

Wais Lāgharī,¹⁶⁴ one of the Samarkand Tūghchī people, was another. Latterly he was much in ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s confidence; in the guerilla times he was with me. Though somewhat factious, he was a man of good judgment and counsel.

Mīr Ghiyās̤ T̤aghāi was another, a younger brother of ‘Ali-dost T̤aghāī. No man amongst the leaders in Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā’s Gate was more to the front than he; he had charge of the Mīrzā’s square seal¹⁶⁵ and was much in his confidence latterly. He was a friend of Wais Lāgharī. When Kāsān had been given to Sl. Maḥmūd Khān (899AH. -1494AD. ), he was continuously in The Khān’s service and was in high favour. He was a laugher, a joker and fearless in vice.

‘Ali-darwesh Khurāsānī was another. He had served in the Khurāsān Cadet Corps, one of two special corps of serviceable young men 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. ‘Alī-darwesh was a brave man; he did well in my presence at the Gate of Bīshkārān.¹⁶⁶ He wrote the naskh ta‘līq hand clearly.¹⁶⁷ His was the flatterer’s tongue and in his character avarice was supreme.

Qaṃbar-‘alī Mughūl of the Equerries (akhtachī) was another. People called him The Skinner because his father, on first coming into the (Farghāna) country, worked as a skinner. Qaṃbar-‘alī had been Yūnas Khān’s water-bottle bearer,¹⁶⁸ later on he became a beg. Till he was a made man, his conduct was excellent; once arrived, he was slack. He was full of talk and of foolish talk, – a great talker is sure to be a foolish one, – his capacity was limited and his brain muddy.

(l. Historical narrative.)

At the time of ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s accident, I was in the Four Gardens (Chār-bāgh) of Andijān.¹⁶⁹ The news reached Andijān on Tuesday, Ramẓan 5 (June 9th); I mounted at once, with my followers and retainers, intending to go into the fort but, on our getting near the Mīrzā’s Gate, Shīrīm T̤aghāī¹⁷⁰ took hold of my bridle and moved off towards the Praying Place.¹⁷¹ It had crossed his mind that if a great ruler like Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā came in force, the Andijān begs would make over to him me and the country,¹⁷² but that if he took me to Aūzkīnt and the foothills thereabouts, I, at any rate, should not be made over and could go to one of my mother’s (half-) brothers, Sl. Maḥmūd Khān or Sl. Aḥmad Khān.¹⁷³ When Khwāja Maulānā-i-qāẓī¹⁷⁴ and the begs in the fort heard of (the intended departure), they sent after us Khwāja Muḥammad, the tailor,¹⁷⁵ an old servant (bāyrī) of my father and the foster-father of one of his daughters. He dispelled our fears and, turning back from near the Praying Place, took me with him into the citadel (ark) where I dismounted. Khwāja Maulānā-i-qāẓī and the begs came to my presence there and after bringing their counsels to a head,¹⁷⁶ busied themselves in making good the towers and ramparts of the fort.¹⁷⁷ A few days later, Ḥasan, son of Yaq‘ūb, and Qāsim Qūchīn, arrived, together with other begs who had been sent to reconnoitre in Marghīnān and those parts.¹⁷⁸ They also, after waiting on me, set themselves with one heart and mind and with zeal and energy, to hold the fort.

(Author’s note on Khwāja Maulānā-i-qāẓī.) He was the son of Sl. Aḥmad Qāẓī, of the line of Burhānu’d-dīn ‘Alī Qīlīch¹⁷⁹ and through his mother, traced back to Sl. Aīlīk Māẓī.¹⁸⁰ By hereditary right (yūsūnlūq) his high family (khānwādalār) must have come to be the Refuge (marji‘) and Pontiffs (Shaikhu’l-islām) of the (Farghāna) country.

Meantime Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā took Aūrā-tīpā, Khujand and Marghīnān, came on to Qabā,¹⁸¹ 4 yīghāch from Andijān and there made halt. At this crisis, Darwesh Gau, one of the Andijān notables, was put to death on account of his improper proposals; his punishment crushed the rest.

Khwāja Qāẓī and Aūzūn (Long) Ḥasan,¹⁸² (brother) of Khwāja Ḥusain, were then sent to Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā to say in effect that, as he himself would place one of his servants in the country and as I was myself both a servant and (as) a son, he would attain his end most readily and easily if he entrusted the service to me. He was a mild, weak man, of few words who, without his begs, decided no opinion or compact (aun), action or move; they paid attention to our proposal, gave it a harsh answer and moved forward.

But the Almighty God, who, of His perfect power and without mortal aid, has ever brought my affairs to their right issue, made such things happen here that they became disgusted at having advanced (i. e. from Qabā), repented indeed that they had ever set out on this expedition and turned back with nothing done.

One of those things was this: Qabā has a stagnant, morass-like Water,¹⁸³ passable only by the bridge. As they were many, there was crowding on the bridge and numbers of horses and camels were pushed off to perish in the water. This disaster recalling the one they had had three or four years earlier when they were badly beaten at the passage of the Chīr, they gave way to fear. Another thing was that such a murrain broke out amongst their horses that, massed together, they began to die off in bands.¹⁸⁴ Another was that they found in our soldiers and peasants a resolution and single-mindedness such as would not let them flinch from making offering of their lives¹⁸⁵ so long as there was breath and power in their bodies. Need being therefore, when one yīghāch from Andijān, they sent Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān¹⁸⁶ to us; Ḥasan of Yaq’ūb went out from those in the fort; the two had an interview near the Praying Place and a sort of peace was made. This done, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s force retired.

Meantime Sl. Maḥmūd Khān had come along the north of the Khujand Water and laid siege to Akhsī.¹⁸⁷ In Akhsī was Jahāngīr Mīrzā (aet. 9) and of begs, ‘Alī-darwesh Beg, Mīrzā Qulī Kūkūldāsh, Muḥ. Bāqir Beg and Shaikh ‘Abdu’l-lāh, Lord of the Gate. Wais Lāgharī and Mīr Ghiyās̤ T̤aghāī had been there too, but being afraid of the (Akhsī) begs had gone off to Kāsān, Wais Lāgharī’s district, where, he being Nāṣir Mīrzā’s guardian, the Mīrzā was.¹⁸⁸ They went over to Sl. Maḥmūd Khān when he got near Akhsī; Mīr Ghiyās̤ entered his service; Wais Lāgharī took Nāṣir Mīrzā to Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā, who entrusted him to Muh. Mazīd Tarkhān’s charge. The Khān, though he fought several times near Akhsī, could not effect anything because the Akhsī begs and braves made such splendid offering of their lives. Falling sick, being tired of fighting too, he returned to his own country (i. e. Tāshkīnt).

For some years, Ābā-bikr Kāshgharī Dūghlāt,¹⁸⁹ bowing the head to none, had been supreme in Kāshgar and Khutan. He now, moved like the rest by desire for my country, came to the neighbourhood of Aūzkīnt, built a fort and began to lay the land waste. Khwāja Qāzī and several begs were appointed to drive him out. When they came near, he saw himself no match for such a force, made the Khwāja his mediator and, by a hundred wiles and tricks, got himself safely free.

Throughout these great events, ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s former begs and braves had held resolutely together and made daring offer of their lives. The Mīrzā’s mother, Shāh Sult̤ān Begīm,¹⁹⁰ and Jaḥāngīr Mīrzā and the ḥaram household and the begs came from Akhsī to Andijān; the customary mourning was fulfilled and food and victuals spread for the poor and destitute.¹⁹¹

In the leisure from these important matters, attention was given to the administration of the country and the ordering of the army. The Andijān Government and control of my Gate were settled (mukarrar) for Ḥasan (son) of Yaq’ūb; Aūsh was decided on (qarār) for Qāsim Qūchīn; Akhsī and Marghīnān assigned (ta’īn) to Aūzun Ḥasan and ‘Alī-dost T̤aghāī. For the rest of ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s begs and braves, to each according to his circumstances, were settled and assigned district (wilāyat) or land (yīr) or office (mauja) or charge (jīrga) or stipend (wajh).

When Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā had gone two or three stages on his return-march, his health changed for the worse and high fever appeared. On his reaching the Āq Sū near Aūrā-tīpā, he bade farewell to this transitory world, in the middle of Shawwāl of the date 899 (mid July 1494 AD.) being then 44 (lunar) years old.

m. Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s birth and descent.

He was born in 855 AH. (1451 AD.) the year in which his father took the throne (i. e. Samarkand). He was Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā’s eldest son; his mother was a daughter of Aūrdū-būghā Tarkhān (Arghūn), the elder sister of Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān, and the most honoured of the Mīrzā’s wives.

n. His appearance and habits.

He was a tall, stout, brown-bearded and red-faced man. He had beard on his chin but none on his cheeks. He had very pleasing manners. As was the fashion in those days, he wound his turban in four folds and brought the end forward over his brows.

o. His characteristics and manners.

He was a True Believer, pure in the Faith; five times daily, without fail, he recited the Prayers, not omitting them even on drinking-days. He was a disciple of his Highness Khwāja ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh (Aḥrārī), his instructor in religion and the strengthener of his Faith. He was very ceremonious, particularly when sitting with the Khwāja. People say he never drew one knee over the other¹⁹² at any entertainment of the Khwāja. On one occasion contrary to his custom, he sat with his feet together. When he had risen, the Khwāja ordered the place he had sat in to be searched; there they found, it may have been, a bone.¹⁹³ He had read nothing whatever and was ignorant (‘amī), and though town-bred, unmannered and homely. Of genius he had no share. He was just and as his Highness the Khwāja was there, accompanying him step by step,¹⁹⁴ most of his affairs found lawful settlement. He was true and faithful to his vow and word; nothing was ever seen to the contrary. He had courage, and though he never happened to get in his own hand to work, gave sign of it, they say, in some of his encounters. He drew a good bow, generally hitting the duck¹⁹⁵ both with his arrows (aūq) and his forked-arrows (tīr-giz), and, as a rule, hit the gourd¹⁹⁶ in riding across the lists (maidān). Latterly, when he had grown stout, he used to take quail and pheasant with the goshawks,¹⁹⁷ rarely failing. A sportsman he was, hawking mostly and hawking well; since Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā, such a sporting pādshāh had not been seen. He was extremely decorous; people say he used to hide his feet even in the privacy of his family and amongst his intimates. Once settled down to drink, he would drink for 20 or 30 days at a stretch; once risen, would not drink again for another 20 or 30 days. He was a good drinker;¹⁹⁸ on non-drinking days he ate without conviviality (basīt̤). Avarice was dominant in his character. He was kindly, a man of few words whose will was in the hands of his begs.

p. His battles.

He fought four battles. The first was with Ni’mat Arghūn, Shaikh Jamāl Arghūn’s younger brother, at Āqār-tūzī, near Zamīn. This he won. The second was with ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā at Khwaṣ; this also he won. The third affair was when he encountered Sl. Maḥmūd Khān on the Chīr, near Tāshkīnt (895 AH. -1469 AD.). There was no real fighting, but some Mughūl plunderers coming up, by ones and twos, in his rear and laying hands on his baggage, his great army, spite of its numbers, broke up without a blow struck, without an effort made, without a coming face to face, and its main body was drowned in the Chīr.¹⁹⁹ His fourth affair was with Ḥaidar Kūkūldāsh (Mughūl), near Yār-yīlāq; here he won.

q. His country.

Samarkand and Bukhārā his father gave him; Tāshkīnt and Sairām he took and held for a time but gave them to his younger brother, ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā, after ‘Abdu’l-qadūs (Dūghlāt) slew Shaikh Jamāl (Arghūn); Khujand and Aūrātīpā were also for a time in his possession.

r. His children.

His two sons did not live beyond infancy. He had five daughters, four by Qātāq Begīm.²⁰⁰

Rābi‘a-sult̤ān Begīm, known as the Dark-eyed Begīm, was his eldest. The Mīrzā himself made her go forth to Sl. Maḥmūd Khān;²⁰¹ she had one child, a nice little boy, called Bābā Khān. The Aūzbegs killed him and several others of age as unripe as his when they martyred (his father) The Khān, in Khujand, (914 AH. -1508 AD.). At that time she fell to Jānī Beg Sult̤ān (Aūzbeg).

Ṣāliḥa-sult̤ān (Ṣalīqa) Begīm was his second daughter; people called her the Fair Begīm. Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā, after her father’s death, took her for his eldest son, Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā and made the wedding feast (900 AH.). Later on she fell to the Kāshgharī with Shāh Begīm and Mihr-nigār Khānim.

‘Āyisha-sult̤ān Begīm was the third. When I was five and went to Samarkand, they set her aside for me; in the guerilla times²⁰² she came to Khujand and I took her (905 AH.); her one little daughter, born after the second taking of Samarkand, went in a few days to God’s mercy and she herself left me at the instigation of an older sister.

Sult̤ānīm Begīm was the fourth daughter; Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā took her; then Tīmūr Sult̤ān (Aūzbeg) took her and after him, Mahdī Sult̤ān (Aūzbeg).

Ma‘sūma-sult̤ān Begīm was the youngest of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s daughters. Her mother, Ḥabība-sult̤ān Begīm, was of the Arghūns, a daughter of Sl. Ḥusain Arghūn’s brother. I saw her when I went to Khurāsān (912 AH. -1506 AD.), liked her, asked for her, had her brought to Kābul and took her (913 AH. -1507 AD.). She had one daughter and there and then, went to God’s mercy, through the pains of the birth. Her name was at once given to her child.

s. His ladies and mistresses.

Mihr-nigār Khānīm was his first wife, set aside for him by his father, Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā. She was Yūnas Khān’s eldest daughter and my mother’s full-sister.

Tarkhān Begīm of the Tarkhāns was another of his wives.

Qātāq Begīm was another, the foster-sister of the Tarkhān Begīm just mentioned. Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā took her par amours (‘āshiqlār bīlā): she was loved with passion and was very dominant. She drank wine. During the days of her ascendancy (tīrīklīk), he went to no other of his ḥaram; at last he took up a proper position (aūlnūrdī) and freed himself from his reproach.²⁰³

Khān-zāda Begīm, of the Tīrmīẕ Khāns, was another. He had just taken her when I went, at five years old, to Samarkand; her face was still veiled and, as is the Turkī custom, they told me to uncover it.²⁰⁴

Lat̤īf Begīm was another, a daughter’s child of Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg Dūldāī (Barlās). After the Mīrzā’s death, Ḥamza Sl. took her and she had three sons by him. They with other sult̤āns’ children, fell into my hands when I took Ḥiṣār (916 AH. -1510 AD.) after defeating Ḥamza Sult̤ān and Tīmūr Sult̤ān. I set all free.

Ḥabība-sult̤ān Begīm was another, a daughter of the brother of Sl. Ḥusain Arghūn.

t. His amīrs.

Jānī Beg Dūldāī (Barlās) was a younger brother of Sl. Malik Kāshgharī. Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā gave him the Government of Samarkand and Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā gave him the control of his own Gate.²⁰⁵ He must have had singular habits and manners;²⁰⁶ many strange stories are told about him. One is this: – While he was Governor in Samarkand, an envoy came to him from the Aūzbegs renowned, as it would seem, for his strength. An Aūzbeg, is said to call a strong man a bull (būkuh). “Are you a būkuh?” said Jānī Beg to the envoy, “If you are, come, let’s have a friendly wrestle together (kūrāshālīng).” Whatever objections the envoy raised, he refused to accept. They wrestled and Jānī Beg gave the fall. He was a brave man.

Aḥmad Ḥājī (Dūldāī Barlās) was another, a son of Sl. Malik Kāshgharī. Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā gave him the Government of Hīrī (Harāt) for a time but sent him when his uncle, Jānī Beg died, to Samarkand with his uncle’s appointments. He was pleasant-natured and brave. Wafā’ī was his pen-name and he put together a dīwān in verse not bad. This couplet is his:

“I am drunk, Inspector, to-day keep your hand off me,

“Inspect me on the day you catch me sober.”

Mīr ‘Alī-sher Nāwā’ī when he went from Hīrī to Samarkand, was with Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg but he went back to Hīrī when Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā (Bāī-qarā) became supreme (873 AH. -1460 AD.) and he there received exceeding favour.

Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg kept and rode excellent tīpūchāqs,²⁰⁷ mostly of his own breeding. Brave he was but his power to command did not match his courage; he was careless and what was necessary in his affairs, his retainers and followers put through. He fell into Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s hands when the Mīrzā defeated Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā in Bukhārā (901 AH.), and was then put to a dishonourable death on the charge of the blood of Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān.²⁰⁸

Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān (Arghūn) was another, the son of Aūrdū-būghā Tarkhān and full-brother of the mother of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā and Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā.²⁰⁹ Of all begs in Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s presence, he was the greatest and most honoured. He was an orthodox Believer, kindly and darwesh-like, and was a constant transcriber of the Qu’rān.²¹⁰ He played chess often and well, thoroughly understood the science of fowling and flew his birds admirably. He died in the height of his greatness, with a bad name, during the troubles between Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā and Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā.²¹¹

‘Abdu’l-‘alī Tarkhān was another, a near relation of Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān, possessor also of his younger sister,²¹² that is to say, Bāqī Tarkhān’s mother. Though both by the Mughūl rule (tūrā) and by his rank, Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān was the superior of ‘Abdu’l-‘alī Tarkhān, this Pharoah regarded him not at all. For some years he had the Government of Bukhārā. His retainers were reckoned at 3,000 and he kept them well and handsomely. His gifts (bakhshīsh), his visits of enquiry (purshīsh), his public audience (dīwān), his work-shops (dast-gāh), his open-table (shīlān) and his assemblies (majlis) were all like a king’s. He was a strict disciplinarian, a tyrannical, vicious, self-infatuated person. Shaibānī Khān, though not his retainer, was with him for a time; most of the lesser (Shaibān) sult̤āns did themselves take service with him. This same ‘Abdu’l-‘alī Tarkhān was the cause of Shaibānī Khān’s rise to such a height and of the downfall of such ancient dynasties.²¹³

Sayyid Yūsuf, the Grey Wolfer²¹⁴ was another; his grandfather will have come from the Mughūl horde; his father was favoured by Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā (Shāhrukhī). His judgment and counsel were excellent; he had courage too. He played well on the guitar (qūbuz). He was with me when I first went to Kābul; I shewed him great favour and in truth he was worthy of favour. I left him in Kābul the first year the army rode out for Hindūstān; at that time he went to God’s mercy.²¹⁵

Darwesh Beg was another; he was of the line of Aīku-tīmūr Beg,²¹⁶ a favourite of Tīmūr Beg. He was a disciple of his Highness Khwāja ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh (Aḥrārī), had knowledge of the science of music, played several instruments and was naturally disposed to poetry. He was drowned in the Chīr at the time of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s discomfiture.

Muḥammad Mazīd Tarkhān was another, a younger full-brother of Darwesh Muḥ. Tarkhān. He was Governor in Turkistān for some years till Shaibānī Khān took it from him. His judgment and counsel were excellent; he was an unscrupulous and vicious person. The second and third times I took Samarkand, he came to my presence and each time I shewed him very great favour. He died in the fight at Kūl-i-malik (918 AH. -1512 AD.).

Bāqī Tarkhān was another, the son of ‘Abdu’l-‘alī Tarkhān and Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s aunt. When his father died, they gave him Bukhārā. He grew in greatness under Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā, his retainers numbering 5 or 6,000. He was neither obedient nor very submissive to Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā. He fought Shaibānī Khān at Dabūsī (905 AH.) and was crushed; by the help of this defeat, Shaibānī Khān went and took Bukhārā. He was very fond of hawking; they say he kept 700 birds. His manners and habits were not such as may be told;²¹⁷ he grew up with a Mīrzā’s state and splendour. Because his father had shewn favour to Shaibānī Khān, he went to the Khān’s presence, but that inhuman ingrate made him no sort of return in favour and kindness. He left the world at Akhsī, in misery and wretchedness.

Sl. Ḥusain Arghūn was another. He was known as Qarā-kūlī because he had held the Qarā-kūl government for a time. His judgment and counsel were excellent; he was long in my presence also.

Qulī Muḥammad Būghdā²¹⁸ was another, a qūchīn; he must have been a brave man.

‘Abdu’l-karīm Ishrit²¹⁹ was another; he was an Aūīghūr, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s Lord of the Gate, a brave and generous man.

(u. Historical narrative resumed.)

After Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s death, his begs in agreement, sent a courier by the mountain-road to invite Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā.²²⁰

Malik-i-Muḥammad Mīrzā, the son of Minūchihr Mīrzā, Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā’s eldest brother, aspired for his own part to rule. Having drawn a few adventurers and desperadoes to himself, they dribbled away²²¹ from (Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s) camp and went to Samarkand. He was not able to effect anything, but he brought about his own death and that of several innocent persons of the ruling House.

At once on hearing of his brother’s death, Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā went off to Samarkand and there seated himself on the throne, without difficulty. Some of his doings soon disgusted and alienated high and low, soldier and peasant. The first of these was that he sent the above-named Malik-i-Muḥammad to the Kūk-sarāī,²²² although he was his father’s brother’s son and his own son-in-law.²²³ With him he sent others, four Mīrzās in all. Two of these he set aside; Malik-i-Muḥammad and one other he martyred. Some of the four were not even of ruling rank and had not the smallest aspiration to rule; though Malik-i-Muḥammad Mīrzā was a little in fault, in the rest there was no blame whatever. A second thing was that though his methods and regulations were excellent, and though he was expert in revenue matters and in the art of administration, his nature inclined to tyranny and vice. Directly he reached Samarkand, he began to make new regulations and arrangements and to rate and tax on a new basis. Moreover the dependants of his (late) Highness Khwāja ‘Ubaid’l-lāh, under whose protection formerly many poor and destitute persons had lived free from the burden of dues and imposts, were now themselves treated with harshness and oppression. On what ground should hardship have touched them? Nevertheless oppressive exactions were made from them, indeed from the Khwāja’s very children. Yet another thing was that just as he was vicious and tyrannical, so were his begs, small and great, and his retainers and followers. The Ḥiṣārīs and in particular the followers of Khusrau Shāh engaged themselves unceasingly with wine and fornication. Once one of them enticed and took away a certain man’s wife. When her husband went to Khusrau Shāh and asked for justice, he received for answer: “She has been with you for several years; let her be a few days with him.” Another thing was that the young sons of the townsmen and shopkeepers, nay! even of Turks and soldiers could not go out from their houses from fear of being taken for catamites. The Samarakandīs, having passed 20 or 25 years under Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā in ease and tranquillity, most matters carried through lawfully and with justice by his Highness the Khwāja, were wounded and troubled in heart and soul, by this oppression and this vice. Low and high, the poor, the destitute, all opened the mouth to curse, all lifted the hand for redress.

“Beware the steaming up of inward wounds,
For an inward wound at the last makes head;
Avoid while thou canst, distress to one heart,
For a single sigh will convulse a world.”²²⁴

By reason of his infamous violence and vice Sl. Maḥmud Mīrzā did not rule in Samarkand more than five or six months.

900 AH. – OCT. 2nd. 1494 to SEP. 21st. 1495 AD.²²⁵

This year Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā sent an envoy, named ‘Abdu’l-qadūs Beg,²²⁶ to bring me a gift from the wedding he had made with splendid festivity for his eldest son, Mas‘ūd Mīrzā with (Ṣāliḥa-sult̤ān), the Fair Begīm, the second daughter of his elder brother, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā. They had sent gold and silver almonds and pistachios.

There must have been relationship between this envoy and Ḥasan-i-yaq‘ūb, and on its account he will have been the man sent to make Ḥasan-i-yaq‘ūb, by fair promises, look towards Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā. Ḥasan-i-yaq‘ūb returned him a smooth answer, made indeed as though won over to his side, and gave him leave to go. Five or six months later, his manners changed entirely; he began to behave ill to those about me and to others, and he carried matters so far that he would have dismissed me in order to put Jahāngīr Mīrzā in my place. Moreover his conversation with the whole body of begs and soldiers was not what should be; every-one came to know what was in his mind. Khwāja-i-Qāzī and (Sayyid) Qāsim Qūchīn and ‘Alī-dost T̤aghāī met other well-wishers of mine in the presence of my grandmother, Āīsān-daulat Begīm and decided to give quietus to Ḥasan-i-yaq‘ūb’s disloyalty by his deposition.

Few amongst women will have been my grandmother’s equals for judgment and counsel; she was very wise and far-sighted and most affairs of mine were carried through under her advice. She and my mother were (living) in the Gate-house of the outer fort;²²⁷ Ḥasan-i-yaq‘ūb was in the citadel.

When I went to the citadel, in pursuance of our decision, he had ridden out, presumably for hawking, and as soon as he had our news, went off from where he was towards Samarkand. The begs and others in sympathy with him,²²⁸ were arrested; one was Muḥammad Bāqir Beg; Sl. Maḥmud Dūldāī, Sl. Muḥammad Dūldāī’s father, was another; there were several more; to some leave was given to go for Samarkand. The Andijān Government and control of my Gate were settled on (Sayyid) Qāsim Qūchīn.

A few days after Ḥasan-i-yaq‘ūb reached Kand-i-badām on the Samarkand road, he went to near the Khūqān sub-division (aūrchīn) with ill-intent on Akhsī. Hearing of it, we sent several begs and braves to oppose him; they, as they went, detached a scouting party ahead; he, hearing this, moved against the detachment, surrounded it in its night-quarters²²⁹ and poured flights of arrows (shība) in on it. In the darkness of the night an arrow (aūq), shot by one of his own men, hit him just (aūq) in the vent (qāchār) and before he could take vent (qāchār),²³⁰ he became the captive of his own act.

“If you have done ill, keep not an easy mind,

For retribution is Nature’s law.”²³¹

This year I began to abstain from all doubtful food, my obedience extended even to the knife, the spoon and the table-cloth;²³² also the after-midnight Prayer (taḥajjud) was less neglected.

(a. Death of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā.)

In the month of the latter Rabī‘ (January 1495 AD.), Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā was confronted by violent illness and in six days, passed from the world. He was 43 (lunar) years old.

b. His birth and lineage.

He was born in 857 AH. (1453 AD.), was Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā’s third son and the full-brother of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā.²³³

c. His appearance and characteristics.

He was a short, stout, sparse-bearded and somewhat ill-shaped person. His manners and his qualities were good, his rules and methods of business excellent; he was well-versed in accounts, not a dinār or a dirhām²³⁴ of revenue was spent without his knowledge. The pay of his servants was never disallowed. His assemblies, his gifts, his open table, were all good. Everything of his was orderly and well-arranged;²³⁵ no soldier or peasant could deviate in the slightest from any plan of his. Formerly he must have been hard set (qātīrār) on hawking but latterly he very frequently hunted driven game.²³⁶ He carried violence and vice to frantic excess, was a constant wine-bibber and kept many catamites. If anywhere in his territory, there was a handsome boy, he used, by whatever means, to have him brought for a catamite; of his begs’ sons and of his sons’ begs’ sons he made catamites; and laid command for this service on his very foster brothers and on their own brothers. So common in his day was that vile practice, that no person was without his catamite; to keep one was thought a merit, not to keep one, a defect. Through his infamous violence and vice, his sons died in the day of their strength (tamām juwān).

He had a taste for poetry and put a dīwān²³⁷ together but his verse is flat and insipid, – not to compose is better than to compose verse such as his. He was not firm in the Faith and held his Highness Khwāja ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh (Aḥrārī) in slight esteem. He had no heart (yūruk) and was somewhat scant in modesty, – several of his impudent buffoons used to do their filthy and abominable acts in his full Court, in all men’s sight. He spoke badly, there was no understanding him at first.

d. His battles.

He fought two battles, both with Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā (Bāīqarā). The first was in Astarābād; here he was defeated. The second was at Chīkman (Sarāī),²³⁸ near Andikhūd; here also he was defeated. He went twice to Kāfiristān, on the south of Badakhshān, and made Holy War; for this reason they wrote him Sl. Maḥmūd Ghāzī in the headings of his public papers.

e. His countries.

Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā gave him Astarābād.²³⁹ After the ‘Irāq disaster (i. e., his father’s death,) he went into Khurāsān. At that time, Qaṃbar-‘alī Beg, the governor of Ḥiṣār, by Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā’s orders, had mobilized the Hindūstān²⁴⁰ army and was following him into ‘Irāq; he joined Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā in Khurāsān but the Khurāsānīs, hearing of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā’s approach, rose suddenly and drove them out of the country. On this Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā went to his elder brother, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā in Samarkand. A few months later Sayyid Badr and Khusrau Shāh and some braves under Aḥmad

Mushtāq ²⁴¹ took him and fled to Qaṃbar-‘alī in Ḥiṣār. From that time forth, Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā possessed the countries lying south of Quhqa (Quhlugha) and the Kohtin Range as far as the Hindū-kush Mountains, such as Tīrmīẕ, Chaghānīān, Ḥiṣār, Khutlān, Qūndūz and Badakhshān. He also held Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s lands, after his brother’s death.

f. His children.

He had five sons and eleven daughters.

Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā was his eldest son; his mother was Khān-zāda Begīm, a daughter of the Great Mīr of Tīrmīẕ. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā was another; his mother was Pasha (or Pāshā) Begīm. Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā was another; his mother was an Aūzbeg, a concubine called Zuhra Begī Āghā. Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā was another; his mother was Khān-zāda Begīm, a grand-daughter of the Great Mīr of Tīrmīẕ; he went to God’s mercy in his father’s life-time, at the age of 13. Sl. Wais Mīrzā (Mīrzā Khān) was another; his mother, Sult̤ān-nigār Khānīm was a daughter of Yūnas Khān and was a younger (half-) sister of my mother. The affairs of these four Mīrzās will be written of in this history under the years of their occurrence.

Of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā’s daughters, three were by the same mother as Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā. One of these, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā’s senior, Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā made to go out to Malik-i-muḥammad Mīrzā, the son of his paternal uncle, Minūchihr Mīrzā.²⁴²

* * * * * *

Five other daughters were by Khān-zāda Begīm, the grand-daughter of the Great Mīr of Tīrmīẕ. The oldest of these, (Khān-zāda Begīm)²⁴³ was given, after her father’s death, to Abā-bikr (Dūghlāt) Kāshgharī. The second was Bega Begīm. When Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā besieged Ḥiṣār (901 AH.), he took her for Ḥaidar Mīrzā, his son by Pāyanda Begīm, Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā’s daughter, and having done so, rose from before the place.²⁴⁴ The third daughter was Āq (Fair) Begīm; the fourth²⁴⁵– ,was betrothed to Jahāngīr Mīrzā (aet. 5, circa 895 AH.) at the time his father, ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā sent him to help Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā with the Andijān army, against Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, then attacking Qūndūz.²⁴⁶ In 910 AH. (1504 AD.) when Bāqī Chaghānīānī²⁴⁷ waited on me on the bank of the Amū (Oxus), these (last-named two) Begīms were with their mothers in Tīrmīẕ and joined me then with Bāqī’s family. When we reached Kahmard, Jahāngīr Mīrzā took – Begīm; one little daughter was born; she now²⁴⁸ is in the Badakhshān country with her grandmother. The fifth daughter was Zainab-sult̤ān Begīm; under my mother’s insistence, I took her at the time of the capture of Kābul (910 AH. – Oct. 1504 AD.). She did not become very congenial; two or three years later, she left the world, through small-pox. Another daughter was Makhdūm-sult̤ān Begīm, Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s full-sister; she is now in the Badakhshān country. Two others of his daughters, Rajab-sult̤ān and Muḥibb-sult̤ān, were by mistresses (ghūnchachī).

g. His ladies (khwātīnlār) and concubines (sarārī).

His chief wife, Khān-zāda Begīm, was a daughter of the Great Mīr of Tirmīẕ; he had great affection for her and must have mourned her bitterly; she was the mother of Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā. Later on, he took her brother’s daughter, also called Khān-zāda Begīm, a grand-daughter of the Great Mīr of Tīrmīẕ. She became the mother of five of his daughters and one of his sons. Pasha (or Pāshā) Begīm was another wife, a daughter of ‘Alī-shukr Beg, a Turkmān Beg of the Black Sheep Bahārlū Aīmāq.²⁴⁹ She had been the wife of Jahān-shāh (Barānī) of the Black Sheep Turkmāns. After Aūzūn (Long) Ḥasan Beg of the White Sheep had taken Āẕar-bāījān and ‘Irāq from the sons of this Jahān-shāh Mīrzā (872 AH. -1467 AD.), ‘Alī-shukr Beg’s sons went with four or five thousand heads-of-houses of the Black Sheep Turkmāns to serve Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā and after the Mīrzā’s defeat (873 AH. by Aūzūn Ḥasan), came down to these countries and took service with Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā. This happened after Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā came to Ḥiṣār from Samarkand, and then it was he took Pasha Begīm. She became the mother of one of his sons and three of his daughters. Sult̤ān-nigār Khānīm was another of his ladies; her descent has been mentioned already in the account of the (Chaghatāī) Khāns.

He had many concubines and mistresses. His most honoured concubine (mu‘atabar ghūma) was Zuhra Begī Āghā; she was taken in his father’s life-time and became the mother of one son and one daughter. He had many mistresses and, as has been said, two of his daughters were by two of them.

h. His amirs.

Khusrau Shāh was of the Turkistānī Qīpchāqs. He had been in the intimate service of the Tarkhān begs, indeed had been a catamite. Later on he became a retainer of Mazīd Beg (Tarkhān) Arghūn who favoured him in all things. He was favoured by Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā on account of services done by him when, after the ‘Irāq disaster, he joined the Mīrzā on his way to Khurāsān. He waxed very great in his latter days; his retainers, under Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā, were a clear five or six thousand. Not only Badakhshān but the whole country from the Amū to the Hindū-kush Mountains depended on him and he devoured its whole revenue (darobast yīr īdī). His open table was good, so too his open hand; though he was a rough getter,²⁵⁰ what he got, he spent liberally. He waxed exceeding great after Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā’s death, in whose sons’ time his retainers approached 20,000. Although he prayed and abstained from forbidden aliments, yet was he black-souled and vicious, dunder-headed and senseless, disloyal and a traitor to his salt. For the sake of this fleeting, five-days world,²⁵¹ he blinded one of his benefactor’s sons and murdered another. A sinner before God, reprobate to His creatures, he has earned curse and execration till the very verge of Resurrection. For this world’s sake he did his evil deeds and yet, with lands so broad and with such hosts of armed retainers, he had not pluck to stand up to a hen. An account of him will come into this history.

Pīr-i-muḥammad Aīlchī-būghā²⁵² Qūchīn was another. In Hazārāspī’s fight²⁵³ he got in one challenge with his fists in Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā’s presence at the Gate of Balkh. He was a brave man, continuously serving the Mīrzā (Maḥmūd) and guiding him by his counsel. Out of rivalry to Khusrau Shāh, he made a night-attack when the Mīrzā was besieging Qūndūz, on Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, with few men, without arming²⁵⁴ and without plan; he could do nothing; what was there he could do against such and so large a force? He was pursued, threw himself into the river and was drowned.

Ayūb (Begchīk Mughūl)²⁵⁵ was another. He had served in Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā’s Khurāsān Cadet Corps, a brave man, Bāīsunghar Mīrzā’s guardian. He was choice in dress and food; a jester and talkative, nicknamed Impudence, perhaps because the Mīrzā called him so.

Walī was another, the younger, full-brother of Khusrau Shāh. He kept his retainers well. He it was brought about the blinding of Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā and the murder of Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā. He had an ill-word for every-one and was an evil-tongued, foul-mouthed, self-pleasing and dull-witted mannikin. He approved of no-one but himself. When I went from the Qūndūz country to near Dūshī (910 AH. -1503 AD.), separated Khusrau Shāh from his following and dismissed him, this person (i. e., Walī) had come to Andar-āb and Sīr-āb, also in fear of the Aūzbegs. The Aīmāqs of those parts beat and robbed him²⁵⁶ then, having let me know, came on to Kābul. Walī went to Shaibānī Khān who had his head struck off in the town of Samarkand.

Shaikh ‘Abdu’l-lāh Barlās²⁵⁷ was another; he had to wife one of the daughters of Shāh Sult̤ān Muḥammad (Badakhshī) i. e., the maternal aunt of Abā-bikr Mīrzā (Mīrān-shāhī) and of Sl. Maḥmūd Khān. He wore his tunic narrow and pur shaqq²⁵⁸; he was a kindly well-bred man.

Maḥmūd Barlās of the Barlāses of Nūndāk (Badakhshān) was another. He had been a beg also of Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā and had surrendered Karmān to him when the Mīrzā took the ‘Irāq countries. When Abā-bikr Mīrzā (Mīrān-shāhī) came against Ḥiṣār with Mazīd Beg Tarkhān and the Black Sheep Turkmāns, and Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā went off to his elder brother, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā in Samarkand, Maḥmūd Barlās did not surrender Ḥiṣār but held out manfully.²⁵⁹ He was a poet and put a dīwān together.

(i. Historical narrative resumed).

When Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā died, Khusrau Shāh kept the event concealed and laid a long hand on the treasure. But how could such news be hidden? It spread through the town at once. That was a festive day for the Samarkand families; soldier and peasant, they uprose in tumult against Khusrau Shāh. Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg and the Tarkhānī begs put the rising down and turned Khusrau Shāh out of the town with an escort for Ḥiṣār.

As Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā himself after giving Ḥiṣār to Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā and Bukhārā to Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā, had dismissed both to their governments, neither was present when he died. The Ḥiṣār and Samarkand begs, after turning Khusrau Shāh out, agreed to send for Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā from Bukhārā, brought him to Samarkand and seated him on the throne. When he thus became supreme (pādshāh), he was 18 (lunar) years old.

At this crisis, Sl. Maḥmūd Khān (Chaghatāī), acting on the word of Junaid Barlās and of some of the notables of Samarkand, led his army out to near Kān-bāī with desire to take that town. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā, on his side, marched out in force. They fought near Kān-bāī. Ḥaidar Kūkūldāsh, the main pillar of the Mughūl army, led the Mughūl van. He and all his men dismounted and were pouring in flights of arrows (shība) when a large body of the mailed braves of Ḥiṣār and Samarkand made an impetuous charge and straightway laid them under their horses’ feet. Their leader taken, the Mughūl army was put to rout without more fighting. Masses (qālīn) of Mughūls were wiped out; so many were beheaded in Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā’s presence that his tent was three times shifted because of the number of the dead.

At this same crisis, Ibrāhīm Sārū entered the fort of Asfara, there read Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā’s name in the Khut̤ba and took up a position of hostility to me.

(Author’s note.) Ibrāhīm Sārū is of the Mīnglīgh people;²⁶⁰ he had served my father in various ways from his childhood but later on had been dismissed for some fault.

The army rode out to crush this rebellion in the month of Sha’bān (May) and by the end of it, had dismounted round Asfara. Our braves in the wantonness of enterprise, on the very day of arrival, took the new wall²⁶¹ that was in building outside the fort. That day Sayyid Qāsim, Lord of my Gate, out-stripped the rest and got in with his sword; Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal and Muḥammad-dost T̤aghāī got theirs in also but Sayyid Qāsim won the Champion’s Portion. He took it in Shāhrukhiya when I went to see my mother’s brother, Sl. Maḥmūd Khān.

(Author’s note.) The Championship Portion²⁶² is an ancient usage of the Mughūl horde. Whoever outdistanced his tribe and got in with his own sword, took the portion at every feast and entertainment.

My guardian, Khudāī-bīrdī Beg died in that first day’s fighting, struck by a cross-bow arrow. As the assault was made without armour, several bare braves (yīkīt yīlāng)²⁶³ perished and many were wounded. One of Ibrāhīm Sārū’s cross-bowmen was an excellent shot; his equal had never been seen; he it was hit most of those wounded. When Asfara had been taken, he entered my service.

As the siege drew on, orders were given to construct head-strikes²⁶⁴ in two or three places, to run mines and to make every effort to prepare appliances for taking the fort. The siege lasted 40 days; at last Ibrāhīm Sārū had no resource but, through the mediation of Khwāja Moulānā-i-qāẓī, to elect to serve me. In the month of Shawwāl (June 1495 A.D.) he came out, with his sword and quiver hanging from his neck, waited on me and surrendered the fort.

Khujand for a considerable time had been dependent on ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā’s Court (dīwān) but of late had looked towards Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā on account of the disturbance in the Farghāna government during the interregnum.²⁶⁵ As the opportunity offered, a move against it also was now made. Mīr Mughūl’s father, ‘Abdu’l-wahhāb Shaghāwal²⁶⁶ was in it; he surrendered without making any difficulty at once on our arrival.

Just then Sl. Maḥmūd Khān was in Shāhrukhiya. It has been said already that when Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā came into Andijān (899 AH.), he also came and that he laid siege to Akhsī. It occurred to me that if since I was so close, I went and waited on him, he being, as it were, my father and my elder brother, and if bye-gone resentments were laid aside, it would be good hearing and seeing for far and near. So said, I went.

I waited on The Khān in the garden Ḥaidar Kūkūldāsh had made outside Shāhrukhiya. He was seated in a large four-doored tent set up in the middle of it. Having entered the tent, I knelt three times,²⁶⁷ he for his part, rising to do me honour. We looked one another in the eyes;²⁶⁸ and he returned to his seat. After I had kneeled, he called me to his side and shewed me much affection and friendliness. Two or three days later, I set off for Akhsī and Andijān by the Kīndīrlīk Pass.²⁶⁹ At Akhsī I made the circuit of my Father’s tomb. I left at the hour of the Friday Prayer (i. e., about midday) and reached Andijān, by the Band-i-sālār Road between the Evening and Bedtime Prayers. This road i. e. the Band-i-sālār, people call a nine yīghāch road.²⁷⁰

One of the tribes of the wilds of Andijān is the Jīgrāk²⁷¹ a numerous people of five or six thousand households, dwelling in the mountains between Kāshghar and Farghāna. They have many horses and sheep and also numbers of yāks (qūtās), these hill-people keeping yāks instead of common cattle. As their mountains are border-fastnesses, they have a fashion of not paying tribute. An army was now sent against them under (Sayyid) Qāsim Beg in order that out of the tribute taken from them something might reach the soldiers. He took about 20,000 of their sheep and between 1000 and 1500 of their horses and shared all out to the men.

After its return from the Jīgrāk, the army set out for Aūrā-tīpā. Formerly this was held by ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā but it had gone out of hand in the year of his death and Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā was now in it on behalf of his elder brother, Bāīsunghar Mīrzā. When Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā heard of our coming, he went off himself to the Macha hill-country, leaving his guardian, Shaikh Ẕū’n-nūn Arghūn behind. From half-way between Khujand and Aūrā-tīpā, Khalīfa²⁷² was sent as envoy to Shaikh Ẕū’n-nūn but that senseless mannikin, instead of giving him a plain answer, laid hands on him and ordered him to death. For Khalīfa to die cannot have been the Divine will; he escaped and came to me two or three days later, stripped bare and having suffered a hundred tūmāns (1,000,000) of hardships and fatigues. We went almost to Aūrā-tīpā but as, winter being near, people had carried away their corn and forage, after a few days we turned back for Andijān. After our retirement, The Khān’s men moved on the place when the Aūrā-tīpā person²⁷³ unable to make a stand, surrendered and came out. The Khān then gave it to Muḥammad Ḥusain Kūrkān Dūghlāt and in his hands it remained till 908 AH. (1503).²⁷⁴

901 AH. – SEP. 21st. 1495 to SEP. 9th. 1496 AD.²⁷⁵

(a. Sult̤ān Ḥusain Mīrzā’s campaign against Khusrau Shāh).

In the winter of this year, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā led his army out of Khurāsān against Ḥiṣār and went to opposite Tīrmīẕ. Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā, for his part, brought an army (from Ḥiṣār) and sat down over against him in Tīrmīẕ. Khusrau Shāh strengthened himself in Qūndūz and to help Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā sent his younger brother, Walī. They (i. e., the opposed forces) spent most of that winter on the river’s banks, no crossing being effected. Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā was a shrewd and experienced commander; he marched up the river,²⁷⁶ his face set for Qūndūz and by this having put Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā off his guard, sent ‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf Bakhshī (pay-master) with 5 or 600 serviceable men, down the river to the Kilīf ferry. These crossed and had entrenched themselves on the other bank before Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā had heard of their movement. When he did hear of it, whether because of pressure put upon him by Bāqī Chaghānīānī to spite (his half-brother) Walī, or whether from his own want of heart, he did not march against those who had crossed but disregarding Walī’s urgency, at once broke up his camp and turned for Ḥiṣār.²⁷⁷

Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā crossed the river and then sent, (1) against Khusrau Shāh, Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and Ibrāhīm Ḥusain Mīrzā with Muḥammad Walī Beg and Ẕū’n-nūn Arghūn, and (2) against Khutlān, Muz̤affar Ḥusain Mīrzā with Muḥammad Barandūq Barlās. He himself moved for Ḥiṣār.

When those in Ḥiṣār heard of his approach, they took their precautions; Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā did not judge it well to stay in the fort but went off up the Kām Rūd valley²⁷⁸ and by way of Sara-tāq to his younger brother, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā in Samarkand. Walī, for his part drew off to (his own district) Khutlān. Bāqī Chaghānīānī, Maḥmūd Barlās and Qūch Beg’s father, Sl. Aḥmad strengthened the fort of Ḥiṣār. Ḥamza Sl. and Mahdī Sl. (Aūzbeg) who some years earlier had left Shaibānī Khān for (the late) Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā’s service, now, in this dispersion, drew off with all their Aūzbegs, for Qarā-tīgīn. With them went Muḥammad Dūghlāt²⁷⁹ and Sl. Ḥusain Dūghlāt and all the Mughūls located in the Ḥiṣār country.

Upon this Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā sent Abū’l-muḥsin Mīrzā after Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā up the Kām Rūd valley. They were not strong enough for such work when they reached the defile.²⁸⁰ There Mīrzā Beg Fīringī-bāz²⁸¹ got in his sword. In pursuit of Ḥamza Sl. into Qarā-tīgīn, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā sent Ibrāhīm Tarkhān and Yaq‘ūb-i-ayūb. They overtook the sult̤āns and fought. The Mīrzā’s detachment was defeated; most of his begs were unhorsed but all were allowed to go free.

(b. Bābur’s reception of the Aūzbeg sult̤āns.)

As a result of this exodus, Ḥamza Sl. with his son, Mamāq Sl., and Mahdī Sl. and Muḥammad Dūghlāt, later known as Ḥiṣārī and his brother, Sl. Ḥusain Dūghlāt with the Aūzbegs dependent on the sult̤āns and the Mughūls who had been located in Ḥiṣār as (the late) Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā’s retainers, came, after letting me know (their intention), and waited upon me in Ramẓān (May-June) at Andijān. According to the custom of Tīmūriya sult̤āns on such occasions, I had seated myself on a raised seat (tūshāk); when Ḥamza Sl. and Mamāq Sl. and Mahdī Sl. entered, I rose and went down to do them honour; we looked one another in the eyes and I placed them on my right, bāghīsh dā.²⁸² A number of Mughūls also came, under Muḥammad Ḥiṣārī; all elected for my service.

(c. Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā’s affairs resumed).

Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, on reaching Ḥiṣār, settled down at once to besiege it. There was no rest, day nor night, from the labours of mining and attack, of working catapults and mortars. Mines were run in four or five places. When one had gone well forward towards the Gate, the townsmen, countermining, struck it and forced smoke down on the Mīrzā’s men; they, in turn, closed the hole, thus sent the smoke straight back and made the townsmen flee as from the very maw of death. In the end, the townsmen drove the besiegers out by pouring jar after jar of water in on them. Another day, a party dashed out from the town and drove off the Mīrzā’s men from their own mine’s mouth. Once the discharges from catapults and mortars in the Mīrzā’s quarters on the north cracked a tower of the fort; it fell at the Bed-time Prayer; some of the Mīrzā’s braves begged to assault at once but he refused, saying, “It is night.” Before the shoot of the next day’s dawn, the besieged had rebuilt the whole tower. That day too there was no assault; in fact, for the two to two and a half months of the siege, no attack was made except by keeping up the blockade,²⁸³ by mining, rearing head-strikes,²⁸⁴ and discharging stones.

When Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and whatever (nī kīm) troops had been sent with him against Khusrau Shāh, dismounted some 16 m. (3 to 4 yīghāch) below Qūndūz,²⁸⁵ Khusrau Shāh arrayed whatever men (nī kīm) he had, marched out, halted one night on the way, formed up to fight and came down upon the Mīrzā and his men. The Khurāsānīs may not have been twice as many as his men but what question is there they were half as many more? None the less did such Mīrzās and such Commander-begs elect for prudence and remain in their entrenchments! Good and bad, small and great, Khusrau Shāh’s force may have been of 4 or 5,000 men!

This was the one exploit of his life, – of this man who for the sake of this fleeting and unstable world and for the sake of shifting and faithless followers, chose such evil and such ill-repute, practised such tyranny and injustice, seized such wide lands, kept such hosts of retainers and followers, – latterly he led out between 20 and 30,000 and his countries and his districts (parganāt) exceeded those of his own ruler and that ruler’s sons,²⁸⁶– for an exploit such as this his name and the names of his adherents were noised abroad for generalship and for this they were counted brave, while those timorous laggards, in the trenches, won the resounding fame of cowards.

Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā marched out from that camp and after a few stages reached the Alghū Mountain of Tāliqān²⁸⁷ and there made halt. Khusrau Shāh, in Qūndūz, sent his brother, Walī, with serviceable men, to Ishkīmīsh, Fulūl and the hill-skirts thereabouts to annoy and harass the Mīrzā from outside also. Muḥibb-‘alī, the armourer, (qūrchī) for his part, came down (from Walī’s Khutlān) to the bank of the Khutlān Water, met in with some of the Mīrzā’s men there, unhorsed some, cut off a few heads and got away. In emulation of this, Sayyidīm ‘Alī²⁸⁸ the door-keeper, and his younger brother, Qulī Beg and Bihlūl-i-ayūb and a body of their men got to grips with the Khurāsānīs on the skirt of ‘Aṃbar Koh, near Khwāja Changāl but, many Khurāsānīs coming up, Sayyidīm ‘Alī and Bābā Beg’s (son) Qulī Beg and others were unhorsed.

At the time these various news reached Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, his army was not without distress through the spring rains of Ḥiṣār; he therefore brought about a peace; Maḥmūd Barlās came out from those in the fort; Ḥājī Pīr the Taster went from those outside; the great commanders and what there was (nī kīm) of musicians and singers assembled and the Mīrzā took (Bega Begīm), the eldest²⁸⁹ daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā by Khān-zāda Begīm, for Ḥaidar Mīrzā, his son by Pāyanda Begīm and through her the grandson of Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā. This done, he rose from before Ḥiṣār and set his face for Qūndūz.

At Qūndūz also Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā made a few trenches and took up the besieger’s position but by Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā’s intervention peace at length was made, prisoners were exchanged and the Khurāsānīs retired. The twice-repeated²⁹⁰ attacks made by Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā on Khusrau Shāh and his unsuccessful retirements were the cause of Khusrau Shāh’s great rise and of action of his so much beyond his province.

When the Mīrzā reached Balkh, he, in the interests of Ṃāwarā’u’n-nahr gave it to Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā, gave Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā’s district of Astarābād to (a younger son), Muz̤affar Ḥusain Mīrzā and made both kneel at the same assembly, one for Balkh, the other for Astarābād. This offended Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and led to years of rebellion and disturbance.²⁹¹

(d. Revolt of the Tarkhānīs in Samarkand).

In Ramẓān of this same year, the Tarkhānīs revolted in Samarkand. Here is the story: – Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā was not so friendly and familiar with the begs and soldiers of Samarkand as he was with those of Ḥiṣār.²⁹² His favourite beg was Shaikh ‘Abdu’l-lāh Barlās²⁹³ whose sons were so intimate with the Mīrzā that it made a relation as of Lover and Beloved. These things displeased the Tarkhāns and the Samarkandī begs; Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān went from Bukhārā to Qarshī, brought Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā to Samarkand and raised him to be supreme. People then went to the New Garden where Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā was, treated him like a prisoner, parted him from his following and took him to the citadel. There they seated both mīrzās in one place, thinking to send Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā to the Gūk Sarāī close to the Other Prayer. The Mīrzā, however, on plea of necessity, went into one of the palace-buildings on the east side of the Bū-stān Sarāī. Tarkhānīs stood outside the door and with him went in Muḥammad Qulī Qūchīn and Ḥasan, the sherbet-server. To be brief: – A gateway, leading out to the back, must have been bricked up for they broke down the obstacle at once. The Mīrzā got out of the citadel on the Kafshīr side, through the water-conduit (āb-mūrī), dropped himself from the rampart of the water-way (dū-tahī), and went to Khwājakī Khwāja’s²⁹⁴ house in Khwāja Kafshīr. When the Tarkhānīs, in waiting at the door, took the precaution of looking in, they found him gone. Next day the Tarkhānīs went in a large body to Khwājakī Khwāja’s gate but the Khwāja said, “No!”²⁹⁵ and did not give him up. Even they could not take him by force, the Khwāja’s dignity was too great for them to be able to use force. A few days later, Khwāja Abu’l-makāram²⁹⁶ and Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg and other begs, great and small, and soldiers and townsmen rose in a mass, fetched the Mīrzā away from the Khwāja’s house and besieged Sl. ‘Ali Mīrzā and the Tarkhāns in the citadel. They could not hold out for even a day; Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān went off through the Gate of the Four Roads for Bukhārā; Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā and Darwesh Muḥ. Tarkhān were made prisoner.

Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā was in Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg’s house when people brought Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān in. He put him a few questions but got no good answer. In truth Darwesh Muḥammad’s was a deed for which good answer could not be made. He was ordered to death. In his helplessness he clung to a pillar²⁹⁷ of the house; would they let him go because he clung to a pillar? They made him reach his doom (siyāsat) and ordered Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā to the Gūk Sarāī there to have the fire-pencil drawn across his eyes.

(Author’s note.) The Gūk Sarāī is one of Tīmūr Beg’s great buildings in the citadel of Samarkand. It has this singular and special characteristic, if a Tīmūrid is to be seated on the throne, here he takes his seat; if one lose his head, coveting the throne, here he loses it; therefore the name Gūk Sarāī has a metaphorical sense (kināyat) and to say of any ruler’s son, “They have taken him to the Gūk Sarāī,” means, to death.²⁹⁸

To the Gūk Sarāī accordingly Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā was taken but when the fire-pencil was drawn across his eyes, whether by the surgeon’s choice or by his inadvertence, no harm was done. This the Mīrzā did not reveal at once but went to Khwāja Yahya’s house and a few days later, to the Tarkhāns in Bukhārā.

Through these occurrences, the sons of his Highness Khwāja ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh became settled partisans, the elder (Muḥammad ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh, Khwājakī Khwāja) becoming the spiritual guide of the elder prince, the younger (Yahya) of the younger. In a few days, Khwāja Yahya followed Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā to Bukhārā.

Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā led out his army against Bukhārā. On his approach, Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā came out of the town, arrayed for battle. There was little fighting; Victory being on the side of Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā sustained defeat. Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg and a number of good soldiers were taken; most of the men were put to death. Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg himself the slaves and slave-women of Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān, issuing out of Bukhārā, put to a dishonourable death on the charge of their master’s blood.

(e. Bābur moves against Samarkand.)

These news reached us in Andijān in the month of Shawwāl (mid-June to mid-July) and as we (act. 14) coveted Samarkand, we got our men to horse. Moved by a like desire, Sl. Mas’ūd Mīrzā, his mind and Khusrau Shāh’s mind set at ease by Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā’s retirement, came over by way of Shahr-i-sabz.²⁹⁹ To reinforce him, Khusrau Shāh laid hands (qāptī) on his younger brother, Walī. We (three mīrzās) beleaguered the town from three sides during three or four months; then Khwāja Yahya came to me from Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā to mediate an agreement with a common aim. The matter was left at an interview arranged (kūrūshmak); I moved my force from Soghd to some 8m. below the town; Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā from his side, brought his own; from one bank, he, from the other, I crossed to the middle of³⁰⁰ the Kohik water, each with four or five men; we just saw one another (kūrūshūb), asked each the other’s welfare and went, he his way, I mine.

I there saw, in Khwāja Yahya’s service, Mullā Binā’ī and Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ;³⁰¹ the latter I saw this once, the former was long in my service later on. After the interview (kūrūshkān) with Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā, as winter was near and as there was no great scarcity amongst the Samarkandīs, we retired, he to Bukhārā, I to Andijān.

Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā had a penchant for a daughter of Shaikh ‘Abdu’l-lāh Barlās, she indeed was his object in coming to Samarkand. He took her, laid world-gripping ambition aside and went back to Ḥiṣār.

When I was near Shīrāz and Kān-bāī, Mahdī Sl. deserted to Samarkand; Ḥamza Sl. went also from near Zamīn but with leave granted.

902 AH. – SEP. 9th. 1496 to AUG. 30th. 1497 AD.³⁰²

(a. Bābur’s second attempt on Samarkand.)

This winter, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā’s affairs were altogether in a good way. When ‘Abdu’l-karīm Ushrit came on Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s part to near Kūfīn, Mahdī Sl. led out a body of Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā’s troops against him. The two commanders meeting exactly face to face, Mahdī Sl. pricked ‘Abdu’l-karīm’s horse with his Chirkas³⁰³ sword so that it fell, and as ‘Abdu’l-karīm was getting to his feet, struck off his hand at the wrist. Having taken him, they gave his men a good beating.

These (Aūzbeg) sult̤āns, seeing the affairs of Samarkand and the Gates of the (Tīmūrid) Mīrzās tottering to their fall, went off in good time (āīrtā) into the open country (?)³⁰⁴ for Shaibānī.

Pleased³⁰⁵ with their small success (over ‘Abdu’l-karīm), the Samarkandīs drew an army out against Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā; Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā went to Sar-i-pul (Bridge-head), Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā to Khwāja Kārzūn. Meantime, Khwāja Abū’l-makāram, at the instigation of Khwāja Munīr of Aūsh, rode light against Bukhārā with Wais Lāgharī and Muḥammad Bāqir of the Andijān begs, and Qāsim Dūldāī and some of the Mīrzā’s household. As the Bukhāriots took precautions when the invaders got near the town, they could make no progress. They therefore retired.

At the time when (last year) Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā and I had our interview, it had been settled³⁰⁶ that this summer he should come from Bukhārā and I from Andijān to beleaguer Samarkand. To keep this tryst, I rode out in Ramẓān (May) from Andijān. Hearing when close to Yār Yīlāq, that the (two) Mīrzās were lying front to front, we sent Tūlūn Khwāja Mūghūl³⁰⁷ ahead, with 2 or 300 scouting braves (qāzāq yīkītlār). Their approach giving Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā news of our advance, he at once broke up and retired in confusion. That same night our detachment overtook his rear, shot a mass (qālīn) of his men and brought in masses of spoil.

Two days later we reached Shīrāz. It belonged to Qāsim Beg Dūldāī; his dārogha (Sub-governor) could not hold it and surrendered.³⁰⁸ It was given into Ibrāhīm Sārū’s charge. After making there, next day, the Prayer of the Breaking of the Fast (‘Īdu’l-fit̤r), we moved for Samarkand and dismounted in the reserve (qūrūgh) of Āb-i-yār (Water of Might). That day waited on me with 3 or 400 men, Qāsim Dūldāī, Wais Lāgharī, Muḥammad Sīghal’s grandson, Ḥasan,³⁰⁹ and Sl. Muḥammad Wais. What they said was this: ‘Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā came out and has gone back; we have left him therefore and are here for the pādshāh’s service,’ but it was known later that they must have left the Mīrzā at his request to defend Shīrāz, and that the Shīrāz affair having become what it was, they had nothing for it but to come to us.

When we dismounted at Qarā-būlāq, they brought in several Mughūls arrested because of senseless conduct to humble village elders coming in to us.³¹⁰ Qāsim Beg Qūchīn for discipline’s sake (siyāsat) had two or three of them cut to pieces. It was on this account he left me and went to Ḥiṣār four or five years later, in the guerilla times, (907 AH.) when I was going from the Macha country to The Khān.³¹¹

Marching from Qarā-būlāq, we crossed the river (i. e. the Zar-afshān) and dismounted near Yām.³¹² On that same day, our men got to grips with Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā’s at the head of the Avenue. Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal was struck in the neck by a spear but not unhorsed. Khwājakī Mullā-i-ṣadr, Khwāja-i-kalān’s eldest brother, was pierced in the nape of the neck³¹³ by an arrow and went straightway to God’s mercy. An excellent soldier, my father before me had favoured him, making him Keeper of the Seal; he was a student of theology, had great acquaintance with words and a good style; moreover he undertook hawking and rain-making with the jade-stone.

While we were at Yām, people, dealers and other, came out in crowds so that the camp became a bazar for buying and selling. One day, at the Other Prayer, suddenly, a general hubbub arose and all those Musalmān (traders) were plundered. Such however was the discipline of our army that an order to restore everything having been given, the first watch (pahār) of the next day had not passed before nothing, not a tag of cotton, not a broken needle’s point, remained in the possession of any man of the force, all was back with its owners.

Marching from Yām, it was dismounted in Khān Yūrtī (The Khān’s Camping Ground),³¹⁴ some 6 m. (3 kuroh) east of Samarkand. We lay there for 40 or 50 days. During the time, men from their side and from ours chopped at one another (chāpqū-lāshtīlār) several times in the Avenue. One day when Ibrāhīm Begchīk was chopping away there, he was cut on the face; thereafter people called him Chāpūk (Balafré). Another time, this also in the Avenue, at the Maghāk (Fosse) Bridge³¹⁵ Abū’l-qāsim (Kohbur Chaghatāī) got in with his mace. Once, again in the Avenue, near the Mill-sluice, when Mīr Shāh Qūchīn also got in with his mace, they cut his neck almost half-through; most fortunately the great artery was not severed.

While we were in Khān Yūrtī, some in the fort sent the deceiving message,³¹⁶ ‘Come you to-night to the Lovers’ Cave side and we will give you the fort.’ Under this idea, we went that night to the Maghāk Bridge and from there sent a party of good horse and foot to the rendezvous. Four or five of the household foot-soldiers had gone forward when the matter got wind. They were very active men; one, known as Ḥājī, had served me from my childhood; another people called Maḥmūd Kūndūr-sangak.³¹⁷ They were all killed.

While we lay in Khān Yūrtī, so many Samarkandīs came out that the camp became a town where everything looked for in a town was to be had. Meantime all the forts, Samarkand excepted, and the Highlands and the Lowlands were coming in to us. As in Aūrgūt, however, a fort on the skirt of the Shavdār (var. Shādwār) range, a party of men held fast³¹⁸, of necessity we moved out from Khān Yūrtī against them. They could not maintain themselves, and surrendered, making Khwāja-i-qāẓī their mediator. Having pardoned their offences against ourselves, we went back to beleaguer Samarkand.

(b. Affairs of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā and his son, Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā.)³¹⁹

This year the mutual recriminations of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā and Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā led on to fighting; here are the particulars: – Last year, as has been mentioned, Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and Muz̤affar Ḥusain Mīrzā had been made to kneel for Balkh and Astarābād. From that time till this, many envoys had come and gone, at last even ‘Alī-sher Beg had gone but urge it as all did, Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā would not consent to give up Astarābād. ‘The Mīrzā,’ he said, ‘assigned³²⁰ it to my son, Muḥammad Mū‘min Mīrzā at the time of his circumcision.’ A conversation had one day between him and ‘Alī-sher Beg testifies to his acuteness and to the sensibility of ‘Alī-sher Beg’s feelings. After saying many things of a private nature in the Mīrzā’s ear, ‘Alī-sher Beg added, ‘Forget these matters.’³²¹ ‘What matters?’ rejoined the Mīrzā instantly. ‘Alī-sher Beg was much affected and cried a good deal.

At length the jarring words of this fatherly and filial discussion went so far that his father against his father, and his son against his son drew armies out for Balkh and Astarābād.³²²

Up (from Harāt) to the Pul-i-chirāgh meadow, below Garzawān,³²³ went Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā; down (from Balkh) came Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā. On the first day of Ramẓān (May 2nd.) Abū’l-muḥsin Mīrzā advanced, leading some of his father’s light troops. There was nothing to call a battle; Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā was routed and of his braves masses were made prisoner. Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā ordered that all prisoners should be beheaded; this not here only but wherever he defeated a rebel son, he ordered the heads of all prisoners to be struck off. And why not? Right was with him. The (rebel) Mīrzās were so given over to vice and social pleasure that even when a general so skilful and experienced as their father was within half-a-day’s journey of them, and when before the blessed month of Ramẓān, one night only remained, they busied themselves with wine and pleasure, without fear of their father, without dread of God. Certain it is that those so lost (yūtkān) will perish and that any hand can deal a blow at those thus going to perdition (aūtkān). During the several years of Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā’s rule in Astarābād, his coterie and his following, his bare (yālāng) braves even, were in full splendour³²⁴ and adornment. He had many gold and silver drinking cups and utensils, much silken plenishing and countless tīpūchāq horses. He now lost everything. He hurled himself in his flight down a mountain track, leading to a precipitous fall. He himself got down the fall, with great difficulty, but many of his men perished there.331

After defeating Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā moved on to Balkh. It was in charge of Shaikh ‘Alī T̤aghāī; he, not able to defend it, surrendered and made his submission. The Mīrzā gave Balkh to Ibrāhīm Ḥusain Mīrzā, left Muḥammad Walī Beg and Shāh Ḥusain, the page, with him and went back to Khurāsān.

Defeated and destitute, with his braves bare and his bare foot-soldiers³²⁵, Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā drew off to Khusrau Shāh in Qūndūz. Khusrau Shāh, for his part, did him good service, such service indeed, such kindness with horses and camels, tents and pavilions and warlike equipment of all sorts, both for himself and those with him, that eye-witnesses said between this and his former equipment the only difference might be in the gold and silver vessels.

(c. Dissension between Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā and Khusrau Shāh.)

Ill-feeling and squabbles had arisen between Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā and Khusrau Shāh because of the injustices of the one and the self-magnifyings of the other. Now therefore Khusrau Shāh joined his brothers, Walī and Bāqī to Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and sent the three against Ḥiṣār. They could not even get near the fort, in the outskirts swords were crossed once or twice; one day at the Bird-house³²⁶ on the north of Ḥiṣār, Muḥibb-‘alī, the armourer (qūrchī), outstripped his people and struck in well; he fell from his horse but at the moment of his capture, his men attacked and freed him. A few days later a somewhat compulsory peace was made and Khusrau Shāh’s army retired.

Shortly after this, Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā drew off by the mountain-road to Ẕū’n-nūn Arghūn and his son, Shujā‘ Arghūn in Qandahār and Zamīn-dāwar. Stingy and miserly as Ẕū’n-nūn was, he served the Mīrzā well, in one single present offering 40,000 sheep.

Amongst curious happenings of the time one was this: Wednesday was the day Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā beat Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā; Wednesday was the day Muz̤affar Ḥusain Mīrzā beat Muḥammad Mū‘min Mīrzā; Wednesday, more curious still, was the name of the man who unhorsed and took prisoner, Muḥammad Mū‘min Mīrzā.³²⁷

903 AH. – AUG. 30th. 1497 to AUG. 19th. 1498 AD.³²⁸

(a. Resumed account of Bābur’s second attempt on Samarkand.)

When we had dismounted in the Qulba (Plough) meadow,³²⁹ behind the Bāgh-i-maidān (Garden of the plain), the Samarkandīs came out in great numbers to near Muḥammad Chap’s Bridge. Our men were unprepared; and before they were ready, Bābā ‘Alī’s (son) Bābā Qulī had been unhorsed and taken into the fort. A few days later we moved to the top of Qulba, at the back of Kohik.³³⁰ That day Sayyid Yūsuf,³³¹ having been sent out of the town, came to our camp and did me obeisance.

The Samarkandīs, fancying that our move from the one ground to the other meant, ‘He has given it up,’ came out, soldiers and townsmen in alliance (through the Turquoise Gate), as far as the Mīrzā’s Bridge and, through the Shaikh-zāda’s Gate, as far as Muḥammad Chap’s. We ordered our braves to arm and ride out; they were strongly attacked from both sides, from Muḥammad Chap’s Bridge and from the Mīrzā’s, but God brought it right! our foes were beaten. Begs of the best and the boldest of braves our men unhorsed and brought in. Amongst them Ḥāfiẓ Dūldāī’s (son) Muḥammad Mīskin³³² was taken, after his index-finger had been struck off; Muḥammad Qāsim Nabīra also was unhorsed and brought in by his own younger brother, Ḥasan Nabīra.³³³ There were many other such soldiers and known men. Of the town-rabble, were brought in Diwāna, the tunic-weaver and Kālqāshūq,³³⁴ headlong leaders both, in brawl and tumult; they were ordered to death with torture in blood-retaliation for our foot-soldiers, killed at the Lovers’ Cave.³³⁵ This was a complete reverse for the Samarkandīs; they came out no more even when our men used to go to the very edge of the ditch and bring back their slaves and slave-women.

The Sun entered the Balance and cold descended on us.³³⁶ I therefore summoned the begs admitted to counsel and it was decided, after discussion, that although the towns-people were so enfeebled that, by God’s grace, we should take Samarkand, it might be to-day, it might be to-morrow, still, rather than suffer from cold in the open, we ought to rise from near it and go for winter-quarters into some fort, and that, even if we had to leave those quarters later on, this would be done without further trouble. As Khwāja Dīdār seemed a suitable fort, we marched there and having dismounted in the meadow lying before it, went in, fixed on sites for the winter-houses and covered shelters,³³⁷ left overseers and inspectors of the work and returned to our camp in the meadow. There we lay during the few days before the winter-houses were finished.

Meantime Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā had sent again and again to ask help from Shaibānī Khān. On the morning of the very day on which, our quarters being ready, we had moved into Khwāja Dīdār, the Khān, having ridden light from Turkistān, stood over against our camping-ground. Our men were not all at hand; some, for winter-quarters, had gone to Khwāja Rabāt̤ī, some to Kabud, some to Shīrāz. None-the-less, we formed up those there were and rode out. Shaibānī Khān made no stand but drew off towards Samarkand. He went right up to the fort but because the affair had not gone as

Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā wished, did not get a good reception. He therefore turned back for Turkistān a few days later, in disappointment, with nothing done.

Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā had sustained a seven months’ siege; his one hope had been in Shaibānī Khān; this he had lost and he now with 2 or 300 of his hungry suite, drew off from Samarkand, for Khusrau Shāh in Qūndūz.

When he was near Tīrmīẕ, at the Amū ferry, the Governor of Tīrmīẕ, Sayyid Ḥusain Akbar, kinsman and confidant both of Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā, heard of him and went out against him. The Mīrzā himself got across the river but Mīrīm Tarkhān was drowned and all the rest of his people were captured, together with his baggage and the camels loaded with his personal effects; even his page, Muḥammad T̤āhir, falling into Sayyid Ḥusain Akbar’s hands. Khusrau Shāh, for his part, looked kindly on the Mīrzā.

When the news of his departure reached us, we got to horse and started from Khwāja Dīdār for Samarkand. To give us honourable meeting on the road, were nobles and braves, one after another. It was on one of the last ten days of the first Rabī‘ (end of November 1497 AD.), that we entered the citadel and dismounted at the Bū-stān Sarāī. Thus, by God’s favour, were the town and the country of Samarkand taken and occupied.

(b. Description of Samarkand.)³³⁸

Few towns in the whole habitable world are so pleasant as Samarkand. It is of the Fifth Climate and situated in lat. 40° 6’ and long. 99°.³³⁹ The name of the town is Samarkand; its country people used to call Mā warā’u’n-nahr (Transoxania).

They used to call it Baldat-i-maḥfūẓa because no foe laid hands on it with storm and sack.³⁴⁰ It must have become³⁴¹ Musalmān in the time of the Commander of the Faithful, his Highness ‘Usmān. Qus̤am ibn ‘Abbās, one of the Companions³⁴² must have gone there; his burial-place, known as the Tomb of Shāh-i-zinda (The Living Shāh, i. e., Fāqīr) is outside the Iron Gate. Iskandar must have founded Samarkand. The Turk and Mughūl hordes call it Sīmīz-kīnt.³⁴³ Tīmūr Beg made it his capital; no ruler so great will ever have made it a capital before (qīlghān aīmās dūr). I ordered people to pace round the ramparts of the walled-town; it came out at 10,000 steps.³⁴⁴ Samarkandīs are all orthodox (sunnī), pure-in-the Faith, law-abiding and religious. The number of Leaders of Islām said to have arisen in Mā warā’u’n-nahr, since the days of his Highness the Prophet, are not known to have arisen in any other country.³⁴⁵ From the Mātarīd suburb of Samarkand came Shaikh Abū’l-manṣūr, one of the Expositors of the Word.³⁴⁶ Of the two sects of Expositors, the Mātarīdiyah and the Ash‘ariyah,³⁴⁷ the first is named from this Shaikh Abū’l-manṣūr. Of Mā warā’u’n-nahr also was Khwāja Ismā‘īl Khartank, the author of the Ṣāḥiḥ-i-bukhārī.³⁴⁸ From the Farghāna district, Marghīnān – Farghāna, though at the limit of settled habitation, is included in Mā warā’u’n-nahr, – came the author of the Hidāyat,³⁴⁹ a book than which few on Jurisprudence are more honoured in the sect of Abū Ḥanīfa.

On the east of Samarkand are Farghāna and Kāshghar; on the west, Bukhārā and Khwārizm; on the north, Tāshkīnt and Shāhrukhiya, – in books written Shāsh and Banākat; and on the south, Balkh and Tīrmīẕ.

The Kohik Water flows along the north of Samarkand, at the distance of some 4 miles (2 kuroh); it is so-called because it comes out from under the upland of the Little Hill (Kohik)³⁵⁰ lying between it and the town. The Dar-i-gham Water (canal) flows along the south, at the distance of some two miles (1 sharī‘). This is a large and swift torrent,³⁵¹ indeed it is like a large river, cut off from the Kohik Water. All the gardens and suburbs and some of the tūmāns of Samarkand are cultivated by it. By the Kohik Water a stretch of from 30 to 40 yīghāch,³⁵² by road, is made habitable and cultivated, as far as Bukhārā and Qarā-kūl. Large as the river is, it is not too large for its dwellings and its culture; during three or four months of the year, indeed, its waters do not reach Bukhārā.³⁵³ Grapes, melons, apples and pomegranates, all fruits indeed, are good in Samarkand; two are famous, its apple and its ṣāḥibī (grape).³⁵⁴ Its winter is mightily cold; snow falls but not so much as in Kābul; in the heats its climate is good but not so good as Kābul’s.

In the town and suburbs of Samarkand are many fine buildings and gardens of Tīmur Beg and Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā.³⁵⁵

In the citadel,³⁵⁶ Tīmūr Beg erected a very fine building, the great four-storeyed kiosque, known as the Gūk Sarāī.³⁵⁷ In the walled-town, again, near the Iron Gate, he built a Friday Mosque³⁵⁸ of stone (sangīn); on this worked many stone-cutters, brought from Hindūstān. Round its frontal arch is inscribed in letters large enough to be read two miles away, the Qu’rān verse, Wa az yerfa‘ Ibrāhīm al Qawā‘id alī akhara.³⁵⁹ This also is a very fine building. Again, he laid out two gardens, on the east of the town, one, the more distant, the Bāgh-i-bulandī,³⁶⁰ the other and nearer, the Bāgh-i-dilkushā.³⁶¹ From Dilkushā to the Turquoise Gate, he planted an Avenue of White Poplar,³⁶² and in the garden itself erected a great kiosque, painted inside with pictures of his battles in Hindūstān. He made another garden, known as the Naqsh-i-jahān (World’s Picture), on the skirt of Kohik, above the Qarā-sū or, as people also call it, the Āb-i-raḥmat (Water-of-mercy) of Kān-i-gil.³⁶³ It had gone to ruin when I saw it, nothing remaining of it except its name. His also are the Bāgh-i-chanār,³⁶⁴ near the walls and below the town on the south,³⁶⁵ also the Bāgh-i-shamāl (North Garden) and the Bāgh-i-bihisht (Garden of Paradise). His own tomb and those of his descendants who have ruled in Samarkand, are in a College, built at the exit (chāqār) of the walled-town, by Muḥammad Sult̤ān Mīrzā, the son of Tīmūr Beg’s son, Jahāngīr Mīrzā.³⁶⁶

Amongst Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā’s buildings inside the town are a College and a monastery (Khānqāh). The dome of the monastery is very large, few so large are shown in the world. Near these two buildings, he constructed an excellent Hot Bath (ḥammām) known as the Mīrzā’s Bath; he had the pavements in this made of all sorts of stone (? mosaic); such another bath is not known in Khurāsān or in Samarkand.³⁶⁷ Again; – to the south of the College is his mosque, known as the Masjid-i-maqat̤a‘ (Carved Mosque) because its ceiling and its walls are all covered with islīmī³⁶⁸ and Chinese pictures formed of segments of wood.³⁶⁹ There is great discrepancy between the qibla of this mosque and that of the College; that of the mosque seems to have been fixed by astronomical observation.

Another of Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā’s fine buildings is an observatory, that is, an instrument for writing Astronomical Tables.³⁷⁰ This stands three storeys high, on the skirt of the Kohik upland. By its means the Mīrzā worked out the Kūrkānī Tables, now used all over the world. Less work is done with any others. Before these were made, people used the Aīl-khānī Tables, put together at Marāgha, by Khwāja Naṣīr Tūsī,³⁷¹ in the time of Hulākū Khān. Hulākū Khān it is, people call Aīl-khānī.³⁷²

(Author’s note.) Not more than seven or eight observatories seem to have been constructed in the world. Māmūm Khalīfa³⁷³ (Caliph) made one with which the Mamūmī Tables were written. Batalmūs (Ptolemy) constructed another. Another was made, in Hindūstān, in the time of Rājā Vikramāditya Hīndū, in Ujjain and Dhar, that is, the Mālwa country, now known as Māndū. The Hindūs of Hindūstān use the Tables of this Observatory. They were put together 1,584 years ago.³⁷⁴ Compared with others, they are somewhat defective.

Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā again, made the garden known as the Bāgh-i-maidān (Garden of the Plain), on the skirt of the Kohik upland. In the middle of it he erected a fine building they call Chihil Sitūn (Forty Pillars). On both storeys are pillars, all of stone (tāshdīn).³⁷⁵ Four turrets, like minarets, stand on its four corner-towers, the way up into them being through the towers. Everywhere there are stone pillars, some fluted, some twisted, some many-sided. On the four sides of the upper storey are open galleries enclosing a four-doored hall (chār-dara); their pillars also are all of stone. The raised floor of the building is all paved with stone.

He made a smaller garden, out beyond Chihil Sitūn and towards Kohik, also having a building in it. In the open gallery of this building he placed a great stone throne, some 14 or 15 yards (qārī) long, some 8 yards wide and perhaps 1 yard high. They brought a stone so large by a very long road.³⁷⁶ There is a crack in the middle of it which people say must have come after it was brought here. In the same garden he also built a four-doored hall, know as the Chīnī-khāna (Porcelain House) because its īzāra³⁷⁷ are all of porcelain; he sent to China for the porcelain used in it. Inside the walls again, is an old building of his, known as the Masjid-i-laqlaqa (Mosque of the Echo). If anyone stamps on the ground under the middle of the dome of this mosque, the sound echoes back from the whole dome; it is a curious matter of which none know the secret.

In the time also of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā the great and lesser begs laid out many gardens, large and small.³⁷⁸ For beauty, and air, and view, few will have equalled Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān’s Chār-bāgh (Four Gardens).³⁷⁹ It lies overlooking the whole of Qulba Meadow, on the slope below the Bāgh-i-maidān. Moreover it is arranged symmetrically, terrace above terrace, and is planted with beautiful nārwān³⁸⁰ and cypresses and white poplar. A most agreeable sojourning place, its one defect is the want of a large stream.

Samarkand is a wonderfully beautified town. One of its specialities, perhaps found in few other places,³⁸¹ is that the different trades are not mixed up together in it but each has its own bāzār, a good sort of plan. Its bakers and its cooks are good. The best paper in the world is made there; the water for the paper-mortars³⁸² all comes from Kān-i-gil,³⁸³ a meadow on the banks of the Qarā-sū (Blackwater) or Āb-i-raḥmat (Water of Mercy). Another article of Samarkand trade, carried to all sides and quarters, is cramoisy velvet.

Excellent meadows lie round Samarkand. One is the famous Kān-i-gil, some 2 miles east and a little north of the town. The Qarā-sū or Āb-i-raḥmat flows through it, a stream (with driving power) for perhaps seven or eight mills. Some say the original name of the meadow must have been Kān-i-ābgīr (Mine of Quagmire) because the river is bordered by quagmire, but the histories all write Kān-i-gil (Mine of clay). It is an excellent meadow. The Samarkand sult̤ans always made it their reserve,³⁸⁴ going out to camp in it each year for a month or two.

Higher up (on the river) than Kān-i-gil and to the s.e. of it is a meadow some 4 miles east of the town, known as Khān Yūrtī (Khān’s Camping-ground). The Qarā-sū flows through this meadow before entering Kān-i-gil. When it comes to Khān Yūrtī it curves back so far that it encloses, with a very narrow outlet, enough ground for a camp. Having noticed these advantages, we camped there for a time during the siege of Samarkand.³⁸⁵

Another meadow is the Būdana Qūrūgh (Quail Reserve), lying between Dil-kushā and the town. Another is the Kūl-i-maghāk (Meadow of the deep pool) at some 4 miles from the town. This also is a round³⁸⁶ meadow. People call it Kul-i-maghāk meadow because there is a large pool on one side of it. Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā lay here during the siege, when I was in Khān Yūrtī. Another and smaller meadow is Qulba (Plough); it has Qulba Village and the Kohik Water on the north, the Bāgh-i-maidān and Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān’s Chār-bāgh on the south, and the Kohik upland on the west.

Samarkand has good districts and tūmāns. Its largest district, and one that is its equal, is Bukhārā, 25 yīghāch³⁸⁷ to the west. Bukhārā in its turn, has several tūmāns; it is a fine town; its fruits are many and good, its melons excellent; none in Mā warā’u’n-nahr matching them for quality and quantity. Although the Mīr Tīmūrī melon of Akhsī³⁸⁸ is sweeter and more delicate than any Bukhārā melon, still in Bukhārā many kinds of melon are good and plentiful. The Bukhārā plum is famous; no other equals it. They skin it,³⁸⁹ dry it and carry it from land to land with rarities (tabarrūklār bīla); it is an excellent laxative medicine. Fowls and geese are much looked after (parwārī) in Bukhārā. Bukhārā wine is the strongest made in Mā warā’u’n-nahr; it was what I drank when drinking in those countries at Samarkand.³⁹⁰

Kesh is another district of Samarkand, 9 yīghāch³⁹¹ by road to the south of the town. A range called the Aītmāk Pass (Dābān)³⁹² lies between Samarkand and Kesh; from this are taken all the stones for building. Kesh is called also Shahr-i-sabz (Green-town) because its barren waste (ṣahr) and roofs and walls become beautifully green in spring. As it was Tīmūr Beg’s birth-place, he tried hard to make it his capital. He erected noble buildings in it. To seat his own Court, he built a great arched hall and in this seated his Commander-begs and his Dīwān-begs, on his right and on his left. For those attending the Court, he built two smaller halls, and to seat petitioners to his Court, built quite small recesses on the four sides of the Court-house.³⁹³ Few arches so fine can be shown in the world. It is said to be higher than the Kisrī Arch.³⁹⁴ Tīmūr Beg also built in Kesh a college and a mausoleum, in which are the tombs of Jahāngīr Mīrzā and others of his descendants.³⁹⁵ As Kesh did not offer the same facilities as Samarkand for becoming a town and a capital, he at last made clear choice of Samarkand.

Another district is Qarshī, known also as Nashaf and Nakhshab.³⁹⁶ Qarshī is a Mughūl name. In the Mughūl tongue they call a kūr-khāna Qarshī.³⁹⁷ The name must have come in after the rule of Chīngīz Khān. Qarshī is somewhat scantily supplied with water; in spring it is very beautiful and its grain and melons are good. It lies 18 yīghāch³⁹⁸ by road south and a little inclined to west of Samarkand. In the district a small bird, known as the qīl-qūyīrūgh and resembling the bāghrī qarā, is found in such countless numbers that it goes by the name of the Qarshī birdie (murghak).³⁹⁹

Khozār is another district; Karmīna another, lying between Samarkand and Bukhārā; Qarā-kūl another, 7 yīghāch⁴⁰⁰ n.w. of Bukhārā and at the furthest limit of the water.

Samarkand has good tūmāns. One is Soghd with its dependencies. Its head Yār-yīlāq, its foot Bukhārā, there may be not one single yīghāch of earth without its village and its cultivated lands. So famous is it that the saying attributed to Tīmūr Beg, ‘I have a garden 30 yīghāch long,⁴⁰¹ must have been spoken of Soghd. Another tūmān is Shāvdār (var. Shādwār), an excellent one adjoining the town-suburbs. On one side it has the range (Aītmāk Dābān), lying between Samarkand and Shahr-i-sabz, on the skirts of which are many of its villages. On the other side is the Kohik Water (i. e. the Dar-i-gham canal). There it lies! an excellent tūmān, with fine air, full of beauty, abounding in waters, its good things cheap. Observers of Egypt and Syria have not pointed out its match.

Though Samarkand has other tūmāns, none rank with those enumerated; with so much, enough has been said.

Tīmūr Beg gave the government of Samarkand to his eldest son, Jahāngīr Mīrzā (in 776 AH. -1375 AD.); when Jahāngīr Mīrzā died (805 AH. -1403 AD.), he gave it to the Mīrzā’s eldest son, Muḥammad Sult̤ān-i-jahāngīr; when Muḥammad Sult̤ān Mīrzā died, it went to Shāh-rukh Mīrzā, Tīmūr Beg’s youngest son. Shāh-rukh Mīrzā gave the whole of Mā warā’u’n-nahr (in 872 AH. -1467 AD.) to his eldest son, Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā. From him his own son, ‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf Mīrzā took it, (853 AH. -1449 AD.), for the sake of this five days’ fleeting world martyring a father so full of years and knowledge.

The following chronogram gives the date of Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā’s death: —

Aūlūgh Beg, an ocean of wisdom and science,
The pillar of realm and religion,
Sipped from the hand of ‘Abbās, the mead of martyrdom,
And the date of the death is ‘Abbās kasht (‘Abbās slew).⁴⁰²

Though ‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf Mīrzā did not rule more than five or six months, the following couplet was current about him: —

Ill does sovereignty befit the parricide;
Should he rule, be it for no more than six months.⁴⁰³

This chronogram of the death of ‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf Mīrzā is also well done: —

‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf, in glory a Khusrau and Jamshīd,
In his train a Farīdūn and Zardusht,
Bābā Ḥusain slew on the Friday Eve,
With an arrow. Write as its date, Bābā Ḥusain kasht (Bābā Ḥusain slew).⁴⁰⁴

After ‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf Mīrzā’s death, (Jumāda I, 22, 855 AH. – June 22nd. 1450 AD.), (his cousin) ‘Abdu’l-lāh Mīrzā, the grandson of Shāh-rukh Mīrzā through Ibrāhīm Mīrzā, seated himself on the throne and ruled for 18 months to two years.⁴⁰⁵ From him Sl. Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā took it (855 AH. -1451 AD.). He in his life-time gave it to his eldest son, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā; Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā continued to rule it after his father’s death (873 AH. -1469 AD.). On his death (899 AH. -1494 AD.) Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā was seated on the throne and on his death (900 AH. -1495 AD.) Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā was made prisoner for a few days, during the Tarkhān rebellion (901 AH. -1496 AD.), and his younger brother, Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā was seated on the throne, but Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā, as has been related in this history, took it again directly. From Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā I took it (903 AH. -1497 AD.). Further details will be learned from the ensuing history.

(c. Bābur’s rule in Samarkand.)

When I was seated on the throne, I shewed the Samarkand begs precisely the same favour and kindness they had had before. I bestowed rank and favour also on the begs with me, to each according to his circumstances, the largest share falling to Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal; he had been in the household begs’ circle; I now raised him to that of the great begs.

We had taken the town after a seven months’ hard siege. Things of one sort or other fell to our men when we got in. The whole country, with exception of Samarkand itself, had come in earlier either to me or to Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā and consequently had not been over-run. In any case however, what could have been taken from districts so long subjected to raid and rapine? The booty our men had taken, such as it was, came to an end. When we entered the town, it was in such distress that it needed seed-corn and money-advances; what place was this to take anything from? On these accounts our men suffered great privation. We ourselves could give them nothing. Moreover they yearned for their homes and, by ones and twos, set their faces for flight. The first to go was Bayān Qulī’s (son) Khān Qulī; Ibrāhīm Begchīk was another; all the Mughūls went off and, a little later, Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal.

Aūzūn Ḥasan counted himself a very sincere and faithful friend of Khwāja-i-qāẓī; we therefore, to put a stop to these desertions, sent the Khwāja to him (in Andijān) so that they, in agreement, might punish some of the deserters and send others back to us. But that very Aūzūn Ḥasan, that traitor to his salt, may have been the stirrer-up of the whole trouble and the spur-to-evil of the deserters from Samarkand. Directly Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal had gone, all the rest took up a wrong position.

(d. Andijān demanded of Bābur by The Khān, and also for Jahāngīr Mīrzā.)

Although, during the years in which, coveting Samarkand, I had persistently led my army out, Sl. Maḥmūd Khān⁴⁰⁶ had provided me with no help whatever, yet, now it had been taken, he wanted Andijān. Moreover, Aūzūn Ḥasan and Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal, just when soldiers of ours and all the Mughūls had deserted to Andijān and Akhsī, wanted those two districts for Jahāngīr Mīrzā. For several reasons, those districts could not be given to them. One was, that though not promised to The Khān, yet he had asked for them and, as he persisted in asking, an agreement with him was necessary, if they were to be given to Jahāngīr Mīrzā. A further reason was that to ask for them just when deserters from us had fled to them, was very like a command. If the matter had been brought forward earlier, some way of tolerating a command might have been found. At the moment, as the Mughūls and the Andijān army and several even of my household had gone to Andijān, I had with me in Samarkand, beg for beg, good and bad, somewhere about 1000 men.

When Aūzūn Ḥasan and Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal did not get what they wanted, they invited all those timid fugitives to join them. Just such a happening, those timid people, for their own sakes, had been asking of God in their terror. Hereupon, Aūzūn Ḥasan and Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal, becoming openly hostile and rebellious, led their army from Akhsī against Andijān.

Tūlūn Khwāja was a bold, dashing, eager brave of the Bārīn (Mughūls). My father had favoured him and he was still in favour, I myself having raised him to the rank of beg. In truth he deserved favour, a wonderfully bold and dashing brave! He, as being the man I favoured amongst the Mughūls, was sent (after them) when they began to desert from Samarkand, to counsel the clans and to chase fear from their hearts so that they might not turn their heads to the wind.⁴⁰⁷ Those two traitors however, those false guides, had so wrought on the clans that nothing availed, promise or entreaty, counsel or threat. Tūlūn Khwāja’s march lay through Aīkī-sū-ārāsī,⁴⁰⁸ known also as Rabāt̤ik-aūrchīnī. Aūzūn Ḥasan sent a skirmishing party against him; it found him off his guard, seized and killed him. This done, they took Jahāngīr Mīrzā and went to besiege Andijān.

(e. Bābur loses Andijān.)

In Andijān when my army rode out for Samarkand, I had left Aūzūn Ḥasan and ‘Alī-dost T̤aghāī (Ramẓān 902 AH. – May 1497 AD.). Khwāja-i-qāẓī had gone there later on, and there too were many of my men from Samarkand. During the siege, the Khwāja, out of good-will to me, apportioned 18,000 of his own sheep to the garrison and to the families of the men still with me. While the siege was going on, letters kept coming to me from my mothers⁴⁰⁹ and from the Khwāja, saying in effect, ‘They are besieging us in this way; if at our cry of distress you do not come, things will go all to ruin. Samarkand was taken by the strength of Andijān; if Andijān is in your hands, God willing, Samarkand can be had again.’ One after another came letters to this purport. Just then I was recovering from illness but, not having been able to take due care in the days of convalescence, I went all to pieces again and this time, became so very ill that for four days my speech was impeded and they used to drop water into my mouth with cotton. Those with me, begs and bare braves alike, despairing of my life, began each to take thought for himself. While I was in this condition, the begs, by an error of judgment, shewed me to a servant of Aūzūn Ḥasan’s, a messenger come with wild proposals, and then dismissed him. In four or five days, I became somewhat better but still could not speak, in another few days, was myself again.

Such letters! so anxious, so beseeching, coming from my mothers, that is from my own and hers, Aīsān-daulat Begīm, and from my teacher and spiritual guide, that is, Khwāja-i-maulānā-i-qāẓī, with what heart would a man not move? We left Samarkand for Andijān on a Saturday in Rajab (Feb. – March), when I had ruled 100 days in the town. It was Saturday again when we reached Khujand and on that day a person brought news from Andijān, that seven days before, that is on the very day we had left Samarkand, ‘Alī-dost T̤aghāī had surrendered Andijān.

These are the particulars; – The servant of Aūzūn Ḥasan who, after seeing me, was allowed to leave, had gone to Andijān and there said, ‘The pādshāh cannot speak and they are dropping water into his mouth with cotton.’ Having gone and made these assertions in the ordinary way, he took oath in ‘Alī-dost T̤aghāī’s presence. ‘Alī-dost T̤aghāī was in the Khākān Gate. Becoming without footing through this matter, he invited the opposite party into the fort, made covenant and treaty with them, and surrendered Andijān. Of provisions and of fighting men, there was no lack whatever; the starting point of the surrender was the cowardice of that false and faithless manikin; what was told him, he made a pretext to put himself in the right.

When the enemy, after taking possession of Andijān, heard of my arrival in Khujand, they martyred Khwāja-i-maulānā-i-qāẓī by hanging him, with dishonour, in the Gate of the citadel. He had come to be known as Khwāja-maulānā-i-qāẓī but his own name was ‘Abdu’l-lāh. On his father’s side, his line went back to Shaikh Burhānu’d-dīn ‘Alī Qīlīch, on his mother’s to Sl. Aīlīk Māẓī. This family had come to be the Religious Guides (muqtadā) and pontiff (Shaikhu’l-islām) and Judge (qāẓī) in the Farghāna country.⁴¹⁰ He was a disciple of his Highness ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh (Aḥrārī) and from him had his upbringing. I have no doubt he was a saint (walī); what better witnesses to his sanctity than the fact that within a short time, no sign or trace remained of those active for his death? He was a wonderful man; it was not in him to be afraid; in no other man was seen such courage as his. This quality is a further witness to his sanctity. Other men, however bold, have anxieties and tremours; he had none. When they had killed him, they seized and plundered those connected with him, retainers and servants, tribesmen and followers.

In anxiety for Andijān, we had given Samarkand out of our hands; then heard we had lost Andijān. It was like the saying, ‘In ignorance, made to leave this place, shut out from that’ (Ghafil az īn jā rānda, az ān jā mānda). It was very hard and vexing to me; for why? never since I had ruled, had I been cut off like this from my retainers and my country; never since I had known myself, had I known such annoyance and such hardship.

(f. Bābur’s action from Khujand as his base.)

On our arrival in Khujand, certain hypocrites, not enduring to see Khalīfa in my Gate, had so wrought on Muḥammad Ḥusain Mīrzā Dūghlāt and others that he was dismissed towards Tāshkīnt. To Tāshkīnt also Qāsim Beg Qūchīn had been sent earlier, in order to ask The Khān’s help for a move on Andijān. The Khān consented to give it and came himself by way of the Ahangarān Dale,⁴¹¹ to the foot of the Kīndīrlīk Pass.⁴¹² There I went also, from Khujand, and saw my Khān dādā.⁴¹³ We then crossed the pass and halted on the Akhsī side. The enemy for their part, gathered their men and went to Akhsī.

Just at that time, the people in Pāp⁴¹⁴ sent me word they had made fast the fort but, owing to something misleading in The Khān’s advance, the enemy stormed and took it. Though The Khān had other good qualities and was in other ways businesslike, he was much without merit as a soldier and commander. Just when matters were at the point that if he made one more march, it was most probable the country would be had without fighting, at such a time! he gave ear to what the enemy said with alloy of deceit, spoke of peace and, as his messengers, sent them Khwāja Abū’l-makāram and his own Lord of the Gate, Beg Tilba (Fool), Taṃbal’s elder brother. To save themselves those others (i. e. Ḥasan and Taṃbal) mixed something true with what they fabled and agreed to give gifts and bribes either to The Khān or to his intermediaries. With this, The Khān retired.

As the families of most of my begs and household and braves were in Andijān, 7 or 800 of the great and lesser begs and bare braves, left us in despair of our taking the place. Of the begs were ‘Alī-darwesh Beg, ‘Alī-mazīd Qūchīn, Muḥammad Bāqir Beg, Shaikh ‘Abdu’l-lāh, Lord of the Gate and Mīrīm Lāgharī. Of men choosing exile and hardship with me, there may have been, of good and bad, between 200 and 300. Of begs there were Qāsim Qūchīn Beg, Wais Lāgharī Beg, Ibrāhīm Sārū Mīnglīgh Beg, Shīrīm T̤aghāī, Sayyidī Qarā Beg; and of my household, Mīr Shāh Qūchīn, Sayyid Qāsim Jalāīr, Lord of the Gate, Qāsim-‘ajab, ‘Alī-dost T̤aghāī’s (son) Muḥammad-dost, Muḥammad-‘alī Mubashir,⁴¹⁵ Khudāī-bīrdī Tūghchī Mughūl, Yārīk T̤aghāī, Bābā ‘Alī’s (son) Bābā Qulī, Pīr Wais, Shaikh Wais, Yār-‘alī Balāl,⁴¹⁶ Qāsim Mīr Akhwūr (Chief Equerry) and Ḥaidar Rikābdār (stirrup-holder).

It came very hard on me; I could not help crying a good deal. Back I went to Khujand and thither they sent me my mother and my grandmother and the families of some of the men with me.

That Ramẓān (April-May) we spent in Khujand, then mounted for Samarkand. We had already sent to ask The Khān’s help; he assigned, to act with us against Samarkand, his son, Sl. Muḥammad (Sult̤ānīm) Khānika and (his son’s guardian) Aḥmad Beg with 4 or 5000 men and rode himself as far as Aūrā-tīpā. There I saw him and from there went on by way of Yār-yīlāq, past the Būrka-yīlāq Fort, the head-quarters of the sub-governor (dārogha) of the district. Sl. Muḥammad Sult̤ān and Aḥmad Beg, riding light and by another road, got to Yār-yīlāq first but on their hearing that Shaibānī Khān was raiding Shīrāz and thereabouts, turned back. There was no help for it! Back I too had to go. Again I went to Khujand!

As there was in me ambition for rule and desire of conquest, I did not sit at gaze when once or twice an affair had made no progress. Now I myself, thinking to make another move for Andijān, went to ask The Khān’s help. Over and above this, it was seven or eight years since I had seen Shāh Begīm⁴¹⁷ and other relations; they also were seen under the same pretext. After a few days, The Khān appointed Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusain (Dūghlāt) and Ayūb Begchīk and Jān-ḥasan Bārīn with 7 or 8000 men to help us. With this help we started, rode light, through Khujand without a halt, left Kand-i-badām on the left and so to Nasūkh, 9 or 10 yīghāch of road beyond Khujand and 3 yīghāch (12-18 m.) from Kand-i-badām, there set our ladders up and took the fort. It was the melon season; one kind grown here, known as Ismā‘īl Shaikhī, has a yellow rind, feels like shagreen leather, has seeds like an apple’s and flesh four fingers thick. It is a wonderfully delicate melon; no other such grows thereabout. Next day the Mughūl begs represented to me, ‘Our fighting men are few; to what would holding this one fort lead on?’ In truth they were right; of what use was it to make that fort fast and stay there? Back once more to Khujand!

(f. Affairs of Khusrau Shāh and the Tīmūrid Mīrzās.)⁴¹⁸

This year Khusrau Shāh, taking Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā with him, led his army (from Qūndūz) to Chaghānīān and with false and treacherous intent, sent this message to Ḥiṣār for Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā, ‘Come, betake yourself to Samarkand; if Samarkand is taken, one Mīrzā may seat himself there, the other in Ḥiṣār.’ Just at the time, the Mīrzā’s begs and household were displeased with him, because he had shewn excessive favour to his father-in-law, Shaikh ‘Abdu’l-lāh Barlās who from Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā had gone to him. Small district though Ḥiṣār is, the Mīrzā had made the Shaikh’s allowance 1,000 tūmāns of fulūs⁴¹⁹ and had given him the whole of Khutlān in which were the holdings of many of the Mīrzā’s begs and household. All this Shaikh ‘Abdu’l-lāh had; he and his sons took also in whole and in part, the control of the Mīrzā’s gate. Those angered began, one after the other, to desert to Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā.

By those words of false alloy, having put Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā off his guard, Khusrau Shāh and Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā moved light out of Chaghānīān, surrounded Ḥiṣār and, at beat of morning-drum, took possession of it. Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā was in Daulat Sarāī, a house his father had built in the suburbs. Not being able to get into the fort, he drew off towards Khutlān with Shaikh ‘Abu’l-lāh Barlās, parted from him half-way, crossed the river at the Aūbāj ferry and betook himself to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā. Khusrau Shāh, having taken Ḥiṣār, set Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā on the throne, gave Khutlān to his own younger brother, Walī and rode a few days later, to lay siege to Balkh where, with many of his father’s begs, was Ibrāhīm Ḥusain Mīrzā (Bāī-qarā). He sent Naz̤ar Bahādur, his chief retainer, on in advance with 3 or 400 men to near Balkh, and himself taking Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā with him, followed and laid the siege.

Walī he sent off with a large force to besiege Shabarghān and raid and ravage thereabouts. Walī, for his part, not being able to lay close siege, sent his men off to plunder the clans and hordes of the Zardak Chūl, and they took him back over 100,000 sheep and some 3000 camels. He then came, plundering the Sān-chīrīk country on his way, and raiding and making captive the clans fortified in the hills, to join Khusrau Shāh before Balkh.

One day during the siege, Khusrau Shāh sent the Naz̤ar Bahādur already mentioned, to destroy the water-channels⁴²⁰ of Balkh. Out on him sallied Tīngrī-bīrdī Samānchī,⁴²¹ Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā’s favourite beg, with 70 or 80 men, struck him down, cut off his head, carried it off, and went back into the fort. A very bold sally, and he did a striking deed.

(g. Affairs of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā and Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā.)

This same year, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā led his army out to Bast and there encamped,⁴²² for the purpose of putting down Ẕū’n-nūn Arghūn and his son, Shāh Shujā‘, because they had become Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā’s retainers, had given him a daughter of Ẕū’n-nūn in marriage and taken up a position hostile to himself. No corn for his army coming in from any quarter, it had begun to be distressed with hunger when the sub-governor of Bast surrendered. By help of the stores of Bast, the Mīrzā got back to Khurāsān.

Since such a great ruler as Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā had twice led a splendid and well-appointed army out and twice retired, without taking Qūndūz, or Ḥiṣār or Qandahār, his sons and his begs waxed bold in revolt and rebellion. In the spring of this year, he sent a large army under Muḥammad Walī Beg to put down (his son) Muḥammad Ḥusain Mīrzā who, supreme in Astarābād, had taken up a position hostile to himself. While Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā was still lying in the Nīshīn meadow (near Harāt), he was surprised by Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and Shāh Shujā‘ Beg (Arghūn). By unexpected good-fortune, he had been joined that very day by Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā, a refugee after bringing about the loss of Ḥiṣār,⁴²³ and also rejoined by a force of his own returning from Astarābād. There was no question of fighting. Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and Shāh Beg, brought face to face with these armies, took to flight.

Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā looked kindly on Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā, made him kneel as a son-in-law and gave him a place in his favour and affection. None-the-less Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā, at the instigation of Bāqī Chaghānīānī, who had come earlier into Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā’s service, started off on some pretext, without asking leave, and went from the presence of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā to that of Khusrau Shāh!

Khusrau Shāh had already invited and brought from Ḥiṣār, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā; to him had gone Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā’s son,⁴²⁴ Mīrān-shāh Mīrzā who, having gone amongst the Hazāra in rebellion against his father, had been unable to remain amongst them because of his own immoderate acts. Some short-sighted persons were themselves ready to kill these three (Tīmūrid) Mīrzās and to read Khusrau Shāh’s name in the khut̤ba but he himself did not think this combination desirable. The ungrateful manikin however, for the sake of gain in this five days’ fleeting world, – it was not true to him nor will it be true to any man soever, – seized that Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā whom he had seen grow up in his charge from childhood, whose guardian he had been, and blinded him with the lancet.

Some of the Mīrzā’s foster-brethren and friends of affection and old servants took him to Kesh intending to convey him to his (half) – brother Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā in Samarkand but as that party also (i. e. ‘Alī’s) became threatening, they fled with him, crossed the river at the Aūbāj ferry and went to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā.

A hundred thousand curses light on him who planned and did a deed so horrible! Up to the very verge of Resurrection, let him who hears of this act of Khusrau Shāh, curse him; and may he who hearing, curses not, know cursing equally deserved!

This horrid deed done, Khusrau Shāh made Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā ruler in Ḥiṣār and dismissed him; Mīrān-shāh Mīrzā he despatched for Bāmīān with Sayyid Qāsim to help him.

904 AH. – AUG. 19th. 1498 to AUG. 8th. 1499 AD.⁴²⁵

(a. Bābur borrows Pashāghar and leaves Khujand.)

Twice we had moved out of Khujand, once for Andijān, once for Samarkand, and twice we had gone back to it because our work was not opened out.⁴²⁶ Khujand is a poor place; a man with 2 or 300 followers would have a hard time there; with what outlook would an ambitious man set himself down in it?

As it was our wish to return to Samarkand, we sent people to confer with Muḥammad Ḥusain Kūrkān Dūghlāt in Aūrā-tīpā and to ask of him the loan for the winter of Pashāghar where we might sit till it was practicable to make a move on Samarkand. He consenting, I rode out from Khujand for Pashāghar.

(Author’s note on Pashāghar.) Pashāghar is one of the villages of Yār-yīlāq; it had belonged to his Highness the Khwāja,⁴²⁷ but during recent interregna,⁴²⁸ it had become dependent on Muḥammad Ḥusain Mīrzā.

I had fever when we reached Zamīn, but spite of my fever we hurried off by the mountain road till we came over against Rabāt̤-i-khwāja, the head-quarters of the sub-governor of the Shavdār tūmān, where we hoped to take the garrison at unawares, set our ladders up and so get into the fort. We reached it at dawn, found its men on guard, turned back and rode without halt to Pashāghar. The pains and misery of fever notwithstanding, I had ridden 14 or 15 yīghāch (70 to 80 miles).

After a few days in Pashāghar, we appointed Ibrāhīm Sārū, Wais Lāgharī, Sherīm T̤aghāī and some of the household and braves to make an expedition amongst the Yār-yīlāq forts and get them into our hands. Yār-yīlāq, at that time was Sayyid Yūsuf Beg’s,⁴²⁹ he having remained in Samarkand at the exodus and been much favoured by Sl. ‘Ali Mīrzā. To manage the forts, Sayyid Yūsuf had sent his younger brother’s son, Aḥmad-i-yūsuf, now⁴³⁰ Governor of Sialkot, and Aḥmad-i-yūsuf was then in occupation. In the course of that winter, our begs and braves made the round, got possession of some of the forts peacefully, fought and took others, gained some by ruse and craft. In the whole of that district there is perhaps not a single village without its defences because of the Mughūls and the Aūzbegs. Meantime Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā became suspicious of Sayyid Yūsuf and his nephew on my account and dismissed both towards Khurāsān.

The winter passed in this sort of tug-of-war; with the oncoming heats,⁴³¹ they sent Khwāja Yaḥya to treat with me, while they, urged on by the (Samarkand) army, marched out to near Shīrāz and Kabud. I may have had 200 or 300 soldiers (sipāhī); powerful foes were on my every side; Fortune had not favoured me when I turned to Andijān; when I put a hand out for Samarkand, no work was opened out. Of necessity, some sort of terms were made and I went back from Pashāghar.

Khujand is a poor place; one beg would have a hard time in it; there we and our families and following had been for half a year⁴³² and during the time the Musalmāns of the place had not been backward in bearing our charges and serving us to the best of their power. With what face could we go there again? and what, for his own part, could a man do there? ‘To what home to go? For what gain to stay?’⁴³³

In the end and with the same anxieties and uncertainty, we went to the summer-pastures in the south of Aūrā-tīpā. There we spent some days in amazement at our position, not knowing where to go or where to stay, our heads in a whirl. On one of those days, Khwāja Abū’l-makāram came to see me, he like me, a wanderer, driven from his home.⁴³⁴ He questioned us about our goings and stayings, about what had or had not been done and about our whole position. He was touched with compassion for our state and recited the fātiḥa for me before he left. I also was much touched; I pitied him.

(b. Bābur recovers Marghīnān.)

Near the Afternoon Prayer of that same day, a horseman appeared at the foot of the valley. He was a man named Yūl-chūq, presumably ‘Ali-dost T̤aghāī’s own servant, and had been sent with this written message, ‘Although many great misdeeds have had their rise in me, yet, if you will do me the favour and kindness of coming to me, I hope to purge my offences and remove my reproach, by giving you Marghīnān and by my future submission and single-minded service.’

Such news! coming on such despair and whirl-of-mind! Off we hurried, that very hour, – it was sun-set, – without reflecting, without a moment’s delay, just as if for a sudden raid, straight for Marghīnān. From where we were to Marghīnān may have been 24 or 25 yīghāch of road.⁴³⁵ Through that night it was rushed without delaying anywhere, and on next day till at the Mid-day Prayer, halt was made at Tang-āb (Narrow-water), one of the villages of Khujand. There we cooled down our horses and gave them corn. We rode out again at beat of (twilight-) drum⁴³⁶ and on through that night till shoot of dawn, and through the next day till sunset, and on through that night till, just before dawn, we were one yīghāch from Marghīnān. Here Wais Beg and others represented to me with some anxiety what sort of an evil-doer ‘Ali-dost was. ‘No-one,’ they said, ‘has come and gone, time and again, between him and us; no terms and compact have been made; trusting to what are we going?’ In truth their fears were just! After waiting awhile to consult, we at last agreed that reasonable as anxiety was, it ought to have been earlier; that there we were after coming three nights and two days without rest or halt; in what horse or in what man was any strength left? – from where we were, how could return be made? and, if made, where were we to go? – that, having come so far, on we must, and that nothing happens without God’s will. At this we left the matter and moved on, our trust set on Him.

At the Sunnat Prayer⁴³⁷ we reached Fort Marghīnān. ‘Alī-dost T̤aghāī kept himself behind (arqa) the closed gate and asked for terms; these granted, he opened it. He did me obeisance between the (two) gates.⁴³⁸ After seeing him, we dismounted at a suitable house in the walled-town. With me, great and small, were 240 men.

As Aūzūn Ḥasan and Taṃbal had been tyrannical and oppressive, all the clans of the country were asking for me. We therefore, after two or three days spent in Marghīnān, joined to Qāsim Beg over a hundred men of the Pashāgharīs, the new retainers of Marghīnān and of ‘Alī-dost’s following, and sent them to bring over to me, by force or fair words, such hill-people of the south of Andijān as the Ashpārī, Tūrūqshār, Chīkrāk and others roundabout. Ibrāhīm Sārū and Wais Lāgharī and Sayyidī Qarā were also sent out, to cross the Khujand-water and, by whatever means, to induce the people on that side to turn their eyes to me.

Aūzūn Ḥasan and Taṃbal, for their parts, gathered together what soldiers and Mughūls they had and called up the men accustomed to serve in the Andijān and Akhsī armies. Then, bringing Jahāngīr Mīrzā with them, they came to Sapān, a village 2 m. east of Marghīnān, a few days after our arrival, and dismounted there with the intention of besieging Marghīnān. They advanced a day or two later, formed up to fight, as far as the suburbs. Though after the departure of the Commanders, Qāsim Beg, Ibrāhīm Sārū and Wais Lāgharī, few men were left with me, those there were formed up, sallied out and prevented the enemy from advancing beyond the suburbs. On that day, Page Khalīl, the turban-twister, went well forward and got his hand into the work. They had come; they could do nothing; on two other days they failed to get near the fort.

When Qāsim Beg went into the hills on the south of Andijān, all the Ashpārī, Tūrūqshār, Chīkrāk, and the peasants and highland and lowland clans came in for us. When the Commanders, Ibrāhīm Sārū and Wais Lāgharī, crossed the river to the Akhsī side, Pāp and several other forts came in.

Aūzūn Ḥasan and Taṃbal being the heathenish and vicious tyrants they were, had inflicted great misery on the peasantry and clansmen. One of the chief men of Akhsī, Ḥasan-dīkcha by name,⁴³⁹ gathered together his own following and a body of the Akhsī mob and rabble, black-bludgeoned⁴⁴⁰ Aūzūn Ḥasan’s and Taṃbal’s men in the outer fort and drubbed them into the citadel. They then invited the Commanders, Ibrāhīm Sārū, Wais Lāgharī and Sayyidī Qarā and admitted them into the fort.

Sl. Maḥmūd Khān had appointed to help us, Ḥaidar Kūkūldāsh’s (son) Banda-‘alī and Ḥājī Ghāzī Manghīt,⁴⁴¹ the latter just then a fugitive from Shaibānī Khān, and also the Bārīn tūmān with its begs. They arrived precisely at this time.

These news were altogether upsetting to Aūzūn Ḥasan; he at once started off his most favoured retainers and most serviceable braves to help his men in the citadel of Akhsī. His force reached the brow of the river at dawn. Our Commanders and the (Tāshkīnt) Mughūls had heard of its approach and had made some of their men strip their horses and cross the river (to the Andijān side). Aūzūn Ḥasan’s men, in their haste, did not draw the ferry-boat up-stream;⁴⁴² they consequently went right away from the landing-place, could not cross for the fort and went down stream.⁴⁴³ Here-upon, our men and the (Tāshkīnt) Mughūls began to ride bare-back into the water from both banks. Those in the boat could make no fight at all. Qārlūghāch (var. Qārbūghāch) Bakhshī (Pay-master) called one of Mughūl Beg’s sons to him, took him by the hand, chopped at him and killed him. Of what use was it? The affair was past that! His act was the cause why most of those in the boat went to their death. Instantly our men seized them all (arīq) and killed all (but a few).⁴⁴⁴ Of Aūzūn Ḥasan’s confidants escaped Qārlūghāch Bakhshī and Khalīl Dīwān and Qāẓī Ghulām, the last getting off by pretending to be a slave (ghulām); and of his trusted braves, Sayyid ‘Alī, now in trust in my own service,⁴⁴⁵ and Ḥaidar-i-qulī and Qilka Kāshgharī escaped. Of his 70 or 80 men, no more than this same poor five or six got free.

On hearing of this affair, Aūzūn Ḥasan and Taṃbal, not being able to remain near Marghīnān, marched in haste and disorder for Andijān. There they had left Nāṣir Beg, the husband of Aūzūn Ḥasan’s sister. He, if not Aūzūn Ḥasan’s second, what question is there he was his third?⁴⁴⁶ He was an experienced man, brave too; when he heard particulars, he knew their ground was lost, made Andijān fast and sent a man to me. They broke up in disaccord when they found the fort made fast against them; Aūzūn Ḥasan drew off to his wife in Akhsī, Taṃbal to his district of Aūsh. A few of Jahāngīr Mīrzā’s household and braves fled with him from Aūzūn Ḥasan and joined Taṃbal before he had reached Aūsh.

(c. Bābur recovers Andijān.)

Directly we heard that Andijān had been made fast against them, I rode out, at sun-rise, from Marghīnān and by mid-day was in Andijān.⁴⁴⁷ There I saw Nāṣir Beg and his two sons, that is to say, Dost Beg and Mīrīm Beg, questioned them and uplifted their heads with hope of favour and kindness. In this way, by God’s grace, my father’s country, lost to me for two years, was regained and re-possessed, in the month Ẕū’l-qa‘da of the date 904 (June 1498).⁴⁴⁸

Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal, after being joined by Jahāngīr Mīrzā, drew away for Aūsh. On his entering the town, the red rabble (qīzīl ayāq) there, as in Akhsī, black-bludgeoned (qarā tīyāq qīlīb) and drubbed his men out, blow upon blow, then kept the fort for me and sent me a man. Jahāngīr and Taṃbal went off confounded, with a few followers only, and entered Aūzkīnt Fort.

Of Aūzūn Ḥasan news came that after failing to get into Andijān, he had gone to Akhsī and, it was understood, had entered the citadel. He had been head and chief in the rebellion; we therefore, on getting this news, without more than four or five days’ delay in Andijān, set out for Akhsī. On our arrival, there was nothing for him to do but ask for peace and terms, and surrender the fort.

We stayed in Akhsī⁴⁴⁹ a few days in order to settle its affairs and those of Kāsān and that country-side. We gave the Mughūls who had come in to help us, leave for return (to Tāshkīnt), then went back to Andijān, taking with us Aūzūn Ḥasan and his family and dependants. In Akhsī was left, for a time, Qāsim-i-‘ajab (Wonderful Qāsim), formerly one of the household circle, now arrived at beg’s rank.

(d. Renewed rebellion of the Mughūls.)

As terms had been made, Aūzūn Ḥasan, without hurt to life or goods, was allowed to go by the Qarā-tīgīn road for Ḥiṣār. A few of his retainers went with him, the rest parted from him and stayed behind. These were the men who in the throneless times had captured and plundered various Musalmān dependants of my own and of the Khwāja. In agreement with several begs, their affair was left at this; – ‘This very band have been the captors and plunderers of our faithful Musalmān dependants;⁴⁵⁰ what loyalty have they shown to their own (Mughūl) begs that they should be loyal to us? If we had them seized and stripped bare, where would be the wrong? and this especially because they might be going about, before our very eyes, riding our horses, wearing our coats, eating our sheep. Who could put up with that? If, out of humanity, they are not imprisoned and not plundered, they certainly ought to take it as a favour if they get off with the order to give back to our companions of the hard guerilla times, whatever goods of theirs are known to be here.’

In truth this seemed reasonable; our men were ordered to take what they knew to be theirs. Reasonable and just though the order was, (I now) understand that it was a little hasty. With a worry like Jahāngīr seated at my side, there was no sense in frightening people in this way. In conquest and government, though many things may have an outside appearance of reason and justice, yet 100,000 reflections are right and necessary as to the bearings of each one of them. From this single incautious order of ours,⁴⁵¹ what troubles! what rebellions arose! In the end this same ill-considered order was the cause of our second exile from Andijān. Now, through it, the Mughūls gave way to anxiety and fear, marched through Rabāt̤ik-aūrchīnī, that is, Aīkī-sū-ārāsī, for Aūzkīnt and sent a man to Taṃbal.

In my mother’s service were 1500 to 2000 Mughūls from the horde; as many more had come from Ḥiṣār with Ḥamza Sl. and Mahdī Sl. and Muḥammad Dūghlāt Ḥiṣārī.⁴⁵² Mischief and devastation must always be expected from the Mughūl horde. Up to now⁴⁵³ they have rebelled five times against me. It must not be understood that they rebelled through not getting on with me; they have done the same thing with their own Khāns, again and again. Sl. Qulī Chūnāq⁴⁵⁴ brought me the news. His late father, Khudāī-bīrdī Būqāq⁴⁵⁵ I had favoured amongst the Mughūls; he was himself with the (rebel) Mughūls and he did well in thus leaving the horde and his own family to bring me the news. Well as he did then however, he, as will be told,⁴⁵⁶ did a thing so shameful later on that it would hide a hundred such good deeds as this, if he had done them. His later action was the clear product of his Mughūl nature. When this news came, the begs, gathered for counsel, represented to me, ‘This is a trifling matter; what need for the pādshāh to ride out? Let Qāsim Beg go with the begs and men assembled here.’ So it was settled; they took it lightly; to do so must have been an error of judgment. Qāsim Beg led his force out that same day; Taṃbal meantime must have joined the Mughūls. Our men crossed the Aīlāīsh river⁴⁵⁷ early next morning by the Yāsī-kījīt (Broad-crossing) and at once came face to face with the rebels. Well did they chop at one another (chāpqūlāshūrlār)! Qāsim Beg himself came face to face with Muḥammad Arghūn and did not desist from chopping at him in order to cut off his head.⁴⁵⁸ Most of our braves exchanged good blows but in the end were beaten. Qāsim Beg, ‘Alī-dost T̤aghāī, Ibrāhīm Sārū, Wais Lāgharī, Sayyidī Qarā and three or four more of our begs and household got away but most of the rest fell into the hands of the rebels. Amongst them were ‘Alī-darwesh Beg and Mīrīm Lāgharī and (Sherīm?) T̤aghāī Beg’s (son) Tūqā⁴⁵⁹ and ‘Alī-dost’s son, Muḥammad-dost and Mīr Shāh Qūchīn and Mīrīm Dīwān.

Two braves chopped very well at one another; on our side, Samad, Ibrāhīm Sārū’s younger brother, and on their side, Shāh-suwār, one of the Ḥiṣārī Mughūls. Shāh-suwār struck so that his sword drove through Samad’s helm and seated itself well in his head; Samad, spite of his wound, struck so that his sword cut off Shāh-suwār’s head a piece of bone as large as the palm of a hand. Shāh-suwār must have worn no helm; they trepanned his head and it healed; there was no one to trepan Samad’s and in a few days, he departed simply through the wound.⁴⁶⁰

Amazingly unseasonable was this defeat, coming as it did just in the respite from guerilla fighting and just when we had regained the country. One of our great props, Qaṃbar-‘alī Mughūl (the Skinner) had gone to his district when Andijān was occupied and therefore was not with us.

(e. Taṃbal attempts to take Andijān.)

Having effected so much, Taṃbal, bringing Jahāngīr Mīrzā with him, came to the east of Andijān and dismounted 2 miles off, in the meadow lying in front of the Hill of Pleasure (‘Aīsh).⁴⁶¹

Once or twice he advanced in battle-array, past Chihil-dukhterān⁴⁶² to the town side of the hill but, as our braves went out arrayed to fight, beyond the gardens and suburbs, he could not advance further and returned to the other side of the hill. On his first coming to those parts, he killed two of the begs he had captured, Mīrīm Lāgharī and Tūqā Beg. For nearly a month he lay round-about without effecting anything; after that he retired, his face set for Aūsh. Aūsh had been given to Ibrāhīm Sārū and his man in it now made it fast.

905 AH. AUG. 8th. 1499 to JULY 28th. 1500 AD.⁴⁶³

(a. Bābur’s campaign against Aḥmad Taṃbal Mughūl.)

Commissaries were sent gallopping off at once, some to call up the horse and foot of the district-armies, others to urge return on Qaṃbar-‘alī and whoever else was away in his own district, while energetic people were told off to get together mantelets (tūra), shovels, axes and the what-not of war-material and stores for the men already with us.

As soon as the horse and foot, called up from the various districts to join the army, and the soldiers and retainers who had been scattered to this and that side on their own affairs, were gathered together, I went out, on Muḥarram 18th. (August 25th.), putting my trust in God, to Ḥāfiẓ Beg’s Four-gardens and there stayed a few days in order to complete our equipment. This done, we formed up in array of right and left, centre and van, horse and foot, and started direct for Aūsh against our foe.

On approaching Aūsh, news was had that Taṃbal, unable to make stand in that neighbourhood, had drawn off to the north, to the Rabāt̤-i-sarhang sub-district, it was understood. That night we dismounted in Lāt-kīnt. Next day as we were passing through Aūsh, news came that Taṃbal was understood to have gone to Andijān. We, for our part, marched on as for Aūzkīnt, detaching raiders ahead to over-run those parts.⁴⁶⁴ Our opponents went to Andijān and at night got into the ditch but being discovered by the garrison when they set their ladders up against the ramparts, could effect no more and retired. Our raiders retired also after over-running round about Aūzkīnt without getting into their hands anything worth their trouble.

Taṃbal had stationed his younger brother, Khalīl, with 200 or 300 men, in Māḏū,⁴⁶⁵ one of the forts of Aūsh, renowned in that centre (ārā) for its strength. We turned back (on the Aūzkīnt road) to assault it. It is exceedingly strong. Its northern face stands very high above the bed of a torrent; arrows shot from the bed might perhaps reach the ramparts. On this side is the water-thief,⁴⁶⁶ made like a lane, with ramparts on both sides carried from the fort to the water. Towards the rising ground, on the other sides of the fort, there is a ditch. The torrent being so near, those occupying the fort had carried stones in from it as large as those for large mortars.⁴⁶⁷ From no fort of its class we have ever attacked, have stones been thrown so large as those taken into Māḏū. They dropped such a large one on ‘Abdu’l-qāsim Kohbur, Kitta (Little) Beg’s elder brother,⁴⁶⁸ when he went up under the ramparts, that he spun head over heels and came rolling and rolling, without once getting to his feet, from that great height down to the foot of the glacis (khāk-rez). He did not trouble himself about it at all but just got on his horse and rode off. Again, a stone flung from the double water-way, hit Yār-‘alī Balāl so hard on the head that in the end it had to be trepanned.⁴⁶⁹ Many of our men perished by their stones. The assault began at dawn; the water-thief had been taken before breakfast-time;⁴⁷⁰ fighting went on till evening; next morning, as they could not hold out after losing the water-thief, they asked for terms and came out. We took 60 or 70 or 80 men of Khalīl’s command and sent them to Andijān for safe-keeping; as some of our begs and household were prisoners in their hands, the Māḏū affair fell out very well.⁴⁷¹

From there we went to Unjū-tūpa, one of the villages of Aūsh, and there dismounted. When Taṃbal retired from Andijān and went into the Rabāt̤-i-sarhang sub-district, he dismounted in a village called Āb-i-khān. Between him and me may have been one yīghāch (5 m.?). At such a time as this, Qaṃbar-‘alī (the Skinner) on account of some sickness, went into Aūsh.

It was lain in Unjū-tūpa a month or forty days without a battle, but day after day our foragers and theirs got to grips. All through the time our camp was mightily well watched at night; a ditch was dug; where no ditch was, branches were set close together;⁴⁷² we also made our soldiers go out in their mail along the ditch. Spite of such watchfulness, a night-alarm was given every two or three days, and the cry to arms went up. One day when Sayyidī Beg T̤aghāī had gone out with the foragers, the enemy came up suddenly in greater strength and took him prisoner right out of the middle of the fight.

(b. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā murdered by Khusrau Shāh.)

Khusrau Shāh, having planned to lead an army against Balkh, in this same year invited Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā to go with him, brought him⁴⁷³ to Qūndūz and rode out with him for Balkh. But when they reached the Aubāj ferry, that ungrateful infidel, Khusrau Shāh, in his aspiration to sovereignty, – and to what sort of sovereignty, pray, could such a no-body attain? a person of no merit, no birth, no lineage, no judgment, no magnanimity, no justice, no legal-mindedness, – laid hands on Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā with his begs, and bowstrung the Mīrzā. It was upon the 10th. of the month of Muḥarram (August 17th.) that he martyred that scion of sovereignty, so accomplished, so sweet-natured and so adorned by birth and lineage. He killed also a few of the Mīrzā’s begs and household.

(c. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā’s birth and descent.)

He was born in 882 (1477 AD.), in the Ḥiṣār district. He was Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā’s second son, younger than Sl. Mas‘ud M. and older than Sl. ‘Alī M. and Sl. Ḥusain M. and Sl. Wais M. known as Khān Mīrzā. His mother was Pasha Begīm.

(d. His appearance and characteristics.)

He had large eyes, a fleshy face⁴⁷⁴ and Turkmān features, was of middle height and altogether an elegant young man (aet. 22).

(e. His qualities and manners.)

He was just, humane, pleasant-natured and a most accomplished scion of sovereignty. His tutor, Sayyid Maḥmūd,⁴⁷⁵ presumably was a Shī‘a; through this he himself became infected by that heresy. People said that latterly, in Samarkand, he reverted from that evil belief to the pure Faith. He was much addicted to wine but on his non-drinking days, used to go through the Prayers.⁴⁷⁶ He was moderate in gifts and liberality. He wrote the naskh-ta‘līq character very well; in painting also his hand was not bad. He made ‘Ādilī his pen-name and composed good verses but not sufficient to form a dīwān. Here is the opening couplet (mat̤la‘) of one of them⁴⁷⁷; —

Like a wavering shadow I fall here and there;

If not propped by a wall, I drop flat on the ground.

In such repute are his odes held in Samarkand, that they are to be found in most houses.

(f. His battles.)

He fought two ranged battles. One, fought when he was first seated on the throne (900 AH. -1495 AD.), was with Sl. Maḥmūd Khān⁴⁷⁸ who, incited and stirred up by Sl. Junaid Barlās and others to desire Samarkand, drew an army out, crossed the Āq-kutal and went to Rabāt̤-i-soghd and Kān-bāī. Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā went out from Samarkand, fought him near Kān-bāī, beat him and beheaded 3 or 4000 Mughūls. In this fight died Ḥaidar Kūkūldāsh, the Khān’s looser and binder (ḥall u‘aqdī). His second battle was fought near Bukhārā with Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā (901 AH. -1496 AD.); in this he was beaten.⁴⁷⁹

(g. His countries.)

His father, Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā, gave him Bukhārā; when Sl. Maḥmūd M. died, his begs assembled and in agreement made Bāī-sunghar M. ruler in Samarkand. For a time, Bukhārā was included with Samarkand in his jurisdiction but it went out of his hands after the Tarkhān rebellion (901 AH. -1496 AD.). When he left Samarkand to go to Khusrau Shāh and I got possession of it (903 AH. -1497 AD.), Khusrau Shāh took Ḥiṣār and gave it to him.

(h. Other details concerning him.)

He left no child. He took a daughter of his paternal uncle, Sl. Khalīl Mīrzā, when he went to Khusrau Shāh; he had no other wife or concubine.

He never ruled with authority so independent that any beg was heard of as promoted by him to be his confidant; his begs were just those of his father and his paternal uncle (Aḥmad).

(i. Resumed account of Bābur’s campaign against Taṃbal.)

After Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā’s death, Sl. Aḥmad Qarāwal,⁴⁸⁰ the father of Qūch (Qūj) Beg, sent us word (of his intention) and came to us from Ḥiṣār through the Qarā-tīgīn country, together with his brethren, elder and younger, and their families and dependants. From Aūsh too came Qaṃbar-‘alī, risen from his sickness. Arriving, as it did, at such a moment, we took the providential help of Sl. Aḥmad and his party for a happy omen. Next day we formed up at dawn and moved direct upon our foe. He made no stand at Āb-i-khān but marched from his ground, leaving many tents and blankets and things of the baggage for our men. We dismounted in his camp.

That evening Taṃbal, having Jahāngīr with him, turned our left and went to a village called Khūbān (var. Khūnān), some 3 yīghāch from us (15 m.?) and between us and Andijān. Next day we moved out against him, formed up with right and left, centre and van, our horses in their mail, our men in theirs, and with foot-soldiers, bearing mantelets, flung to the front. Our right was ‘Alī-dost and his dependants, our left Ibrāhīm Sārū, Wais Lāgharī, Sayyidī Qarā, Muḥammad-‘alī Mubashir, and Khwāja-i-kalān’s elder brother, Kīchīk Beg, with several of the household. In the left were inscribed⁴⁸¹ also Sl. Aḥmad Qarāwal and Qūch Beg with their brethren. With me in the centre was Qāsim Beg Qūchīn; in the van were Qaṃbar-‘alī (the Skinner) and some of the household. When we reached Sāqā, a village two miles east of Khūbān, the enemy came out of Khūbān, arrayed to fight. We, for our part, moved on the faster. At the time of engaging, our foot-soldiers, provided how laboriously with the mantelets! were quite in the rear! By God’s grace, there was no need of them; our left had got hands in with their right before they came up. Kīchīk Beg chopped away very well; next to him ranked Muḥammad ‘Alī Mubashir. Not being able to bring equal zeal to oppose us, the enemy took to flight. The fighting did not reach the front of our van or right. Our men brought in many of their braves; we ordered the heads of all to be struck off. Favouring caution and good generalship, our begs, Qāsim Beg and, especially, ‘Alī-dost did not think it advisable to send far in pursuit; for this reason, many of their men did not fall into our hands. We dismounted right in Khūbān village. This was my first ranged battle; the Most High God, of His own favour and mercy, made it a day of victory and triumph. We accepted the omen.

On the next following day, my father’s mother, my grandmother, Shāh Sult̤ān Begīm⁴⁸² arrived from Andijān, thinking to beg off Jahāngīr Mīrzā if he had been taken.

(j. Bābur goes into winter-quarters in Between-the-two-rivers.)

As it was now almost winter and no grain or fruits⁴⁸³ remained in the open country, it was not thought desirable to move against (Taṃbal in) Aūzkīnt but return was made to Andijān. A few days later, it was settled after consultation, that for us to winter in the town would in no way hurt or hamper the enemy, rather that he would wax the stronger by it through raids and guerilla fighting; moreover on our own account, it was necessary that we should winter where our men would not become enfeebled through want of grain and where we could straiten the enemy by some sort of blockade. For these desirable ends we marched out of Andijān, meaning to winter near Armiyān and Nūsh-āb in the Rabāt̤ik-aūrchīnī, known also as Between-the-two-rivers. On arriving in the two villages above-mentioned, we prepared winter-quarters.

The hunting-grounds are good in that neighbourhood; in the jungle near the Aīlāīsh river is much būghū-marāl⁴⁸⁴ and pig; the small scattered clumps of jungle are thick with hare and pheasant; and on the near rising-ground, are many foxes⁴⁸⁵ of fine colour and swifter than those of any other place. While we were in those quarters, I used to ride hunting every two or three days; we would beat through the great jungle and hunt būghū-marāl, or we would wander about, making a circle round scattered clumps and flying our hawks at the pheasants. The pheasants are unlimited⁴⁸⁶ there; pheasant-meat was abundant as long as we were in those quarters.

While we were there, Khudāī-bīrdī Tūghchī, then newly-favoured with beg’s rank, fell on some of Taṃbal’s raiders and brought in a few heads. Our braves went out also from Aūsh and Andijān and raided untiringly on the enemy, driving in his herds of horses and much enfeebling him. If the whole winter had been passed in those quarters, the more probable thing is that he would have broken up simply without a fight.

(k. Qaṃbar-‘alī again asks leave.)

It was at such a time, just when our foe was growing weak and helpless, that Qaṃbar-‘alī asked leave to go to his district. The more he was dissuaded by reminder of the probabilities of the position, the more stupidity he shewed. An amazingly fickle and veering manikin he was! It had to be! Leave for his district was given him. That district had been Khujand formerly but when Andijān was taken this last time, Asfara and Kand-i-badām were given him in addition. Amongst our begs, he was the one with large districts and many followers; no-one’s land or following equalled his. We had been 40 or 50 days in those winter-quarters. At his recommendation, leave was given also to some of the clans in the army. We, for our part, went into Andijān.

(l. Sl. Maḥmūd Khān sends Mughūls to help Taṃbal.)

Both while we were in our winter-quarters and later on in Andijān, Taṃbal’s people came and went unceasingly between him and The Khān in Tāshkīnt. His paternal uncle of the full-blood, Aḥmad Beg, was guardian of The Khān’s son, Sl. Muḥammad Sl. and high in favour; his elder brother of the full-blood, Beg Tīlba (Fool), was The Khān’s Lord of the Gate. After all the comings and goings, these two brought The Khān to the point of reinforcing Taṃbal. Beg Tīlba, leaving his wife and domestics and family in Tāshkīnt, came on ahead of the reinforcement and joined his younger brother, Taṃbal, – Beg Tīlba! who from his birth up had been in Mughūlistān, had grown up amongst Mughūls, had never entered a cultivated country or served the rulers of one, but from first to last had served The Khāns!

Just then a wonderful (‘ajab) thing happened;⁴⁸⁷ Qāsim-i-‘ajab (wonderful Qāsim) when he had been left for a time in Akhsī, went out one day after a few marauders, crossed the Khujand-water by Bachrātā, met in with a few of Taṃbal’s men and was made prisoner.

When Taṃbal heard that our army was disbanded and was assured of The Khān’s help by the arrival of his brother, Beg Tīlba, who had talked with The Khān, he rode from Aūzkīnt into Between-the-two-rivers. Meantime safe news had come to us from Kāsān that The Khān had appointed his son, Sl. Muḥ. Khānika, commonly known as Sult̤ānīm,⁴⁸⁸ and Aḥmad Beg, with 5 or 6000 men, to help Taṃbal, that they had crossed by the Archa-kīnt road⁴⁸⁹ and were laying siege to Kāsān. Hereupon we, without delay, without a glance at our absent men, just with those there were, in the hard cold of winter, put our trust in God and rode off by the Band-i-sālār road to oppose them. That night we stopped no-where; on we went through the darkness till, at dawn, we dismounted in Akhsī.⁴⁹⁰ So mightily bitter was the cold that night that it bit the hands and feet of several men and swelled up the ears of many, each ear like an apple. We made no stay in Akhsī but leaving there Yārak T̤aghāī, temporarily also, in Qāsim-i-‘ajab’s place, passed on for Kāsān. Two miles from Kāsān news came that on hearing of our approach, Aḥmad Beg and Sult̤ānīm had hurried off in disorder.

(m. Bābur and Taṃbal again opposed.)

Taṃbal must have had news of our getting to horse for he had hurried to help his elder brother.⁴⁹¹ Somewhere between the two Prayers of the day,⁴⁹² his blackness⁴⁹³ became visible towards Nū-kīnt. Astonished and perplexed by his elder brother’s light departure and by our quick arrival, he stopped short. Said we, ‘It is God has brought them in this fashion! here they have come with their horses’ necks at full stretch;⁴⁹⁴ if we join hands⁴⁹⁵ and go out, and if God bring it right, not a man of them will get off.’ But Wais Lāgharī and some others said, ‘It is late in the day; even if we do not go out today, where can they go tomorrow? Wherever it is, we will meet them at dawn.’ So they said, not thinking it well to make the joint effort there and then; so too the enemy, come so opportunely, broke up and got away without any hurt whatever. The (Turkī) proverb is, ‘Who does not snatch at a chance, will worry himself about it till old age.’

Seizing the advantage of a respite till the morrow, the enemy slipped away in the night, and without dismounting on the road, went into Fort Archīān. When a morrow’s move against a foe was made, we found no foe; after him we went and, not thinking it well to lay close siege to Archīān, dismounted two miles off (one shar‘ī) in Ghazna-namangān.⁴⁹⁶ We were in camp there for 30 or 40 days, Taṃbal being in Fort Archīān. Every now and then a very few would go from our side and come from theirs, fling themselves on one another midway and return. They made one night-attack, rained arrows in on us and retired. As the camp was encircled by a ditch or by branches close-set, and as watch was kept, they could effect no more.

(n. Qaṃbar-‘alī, the Skinner, again gives trouble.)

Two or three times while we lay in that camp, Qaṃbar-‘alī, in ill-temper, was for going to his district; once he even had got to horse and started in a fume, but we sent several begs after him who, with much trouble, got him to turn back.

(o. Further action against Taṃbal and an accommodation made.)

Meantime Sayyid Yūsuf of Macham had sent a man to Taṃbal and was looking towards him. He was the head-man of one of the two foot-hills of Andijān, Macham and Awīghūr. Latterly he had become known in my Gate, having outgrown the head-man and put on the beg, though no-one ever had made him a beg. He was a singularly hypocritical manikin, of no standing whatever. From our last taking of Andijān (June 1499) till then (Feb. 1500), he had revolted two or three times from Taṃbal and come to me, and two or three times had revolted from me and gone to Taṃbal. This was his last change of side. With him were many from the (Mughūl) horde and tribesmen and clansmen. ‘Don’t let him join Taṃbal,’ we said and rode in between them. We got to Bīshkhārān with one night’s halt. Taṃbal’s men must have come earlier and entered the fort. A party of our begs, ‘Alī-darwesh Beg and Qūch Beg, with his brothers, went close up to the Gate of Bīshkhārān and exchanged good blows with the enemy. Qūch Beg and his brothers did very well there, their hands getting in for most of the work. We dismounted on a height some two miles from Bīshkhārān; Taṃbal, having Jahāngīr with him, dismounted with the fort behind him.

Three or four days later, begs unfriendly to us, that is to say, ‘Alī-dost and Qaṃbar-‘alī, the Skinner, with their followers and dependants, began to interpose with talk of peace. I and my well-wishers had no knowledge of a peace and we all⁴⁹⁷ were utterly averse from the project. Those two manikins however were our two great begs; if we gave no ear to their words and if we did not make peace, other things from them were probable! It had to be! Peace was made in this fashion; – the districts on the Akhsī side of the Khujand-water were to depend on Jahāngīr, those on the Andijān side, on me; Aūzkīnt was to be left in my jurisdiction after they had removed their families from it; when the districts were settled and I and Jahāngīr had made our agreement, we (bīz) should march together against Samarkand; and when I was in possession of Samarkand, Andijān was to be given to Jahāngīr. So the affair was settled. Next day, – it was one of the last of Rajab, (end of Feb. 1500) Jahāngīr Mīrzā and Taṃbal came and did me obeisance; the terms and conditions were ratified as stated above; leave for Akhsī was given to Jahāngīr and I betook myself to Andijān.

On our arrival, Khalīl-of-Taṃbal and our whole band of prisoners were released; robes of honour were put on them and leave to go was given. They, in their turn, set free our begs and household, viz. the commanders⁴⁹⁸ (Sherīm?) T̤aghāī Beg, Muḥammad-dost, Mīr Shāh Qūchīn, Sayyidī Qarā Beg, Qāsim-i-‘ajab, Mīr Wais, Mīrīm Dīwān, and those under them.

(p. The self-aggrandizement of ‘Alī-dost T̤aghāī.)

After our return to Andijān, ‘Alī-dost’s manners and behaviour changed entirely. He began to live ill with my companions of the guerilla days and times of hardship. First, he dismissed Khalīfa; next seized and plundered Ibrāhīm Sārū and Wais Lāgharī, and for no fault or cause deprived them of their districts and dismissed them. He entangled himself with Qāsim Beg and he was made to go; he openly declared, ‘Khalīfa and Ibrāhīm are in sympathy about Khwāja-i-qāẓī; they will avenge him on me.’⁴⁹⁹ His son, Muḥammad-dost set himself up on a regal footing, starting receptions and a public table and a Court and workshops, after the fashion of sult̤āns. Like father, like son, they set themselves up in this improper way because they had Taṃbal at their backs. No authority to restrain their unreasonable misdeeds was left to me; for why? Whatever their hearts desired, that they did because such a foe of mine as Taṃbal was their backer. The position was singularly delicate; not a word was said but many humiliations were endured from that father and that son alike.

(q. Bābur’s first marriage.)

‘Āyisha-sult̤ān Begīm whom my father and hers, i. e. my uncle, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā had betrothed to me, came (this year) to Khujand⁵⁰⁰ and I took her in the month of Sha‘bān. Though I was not ill-disposed towards her, yet, this being my first marriage, out of modesty and bashfulness, I used to see her once in 10, 15 or 20 days. Later on when even my first inclination did not last, my bashfulness increased. Then my mother Khānīm used to send me, once a month or every 40 days, with driving and driving, dunnings and worryings.

(r. A personal episode and some verses by Bābur.)

In those leisurely days I discovered in myself a strange inclination, nay! as the verse says, ‘I maddened and afflicted myself’ for a boy in the camp-bazar, his very name, Bāburī, fitting in. Up till then I had had no inclination for any-one, indeed of love and desire, either by hear-say or experience, I had not heard, I had not talked. At that time I composed Persian couplets, one or two at a time; this is one of the them: —

May none be as I, humbled and wretched and love-sick;
No beloved as thou art to me, cruel and careless.

From time to time Bāburī used to come to my presence but out of modesty and bashfulness, I could never look straight at him; how then could I make conversation (ikhtilāt̤) and recital (hikāyat)? In my joy and agitation I could not thank him (for coming); how was it possible for me to reproach him with going away? What power had I to command the duty of service to myself?⁵⁰¹ One day, during that time of desire and passion when I was going with companions along a lane and suddenly met him face to face, I got into such a state of confusion that I almost went right off. To look straight at him or to put words together was impossible. With a hundred torments and shames, I went on. A (Persian) couplet of Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ’s⁵⁰² came into my mind: —

I am abashed with shame when I see my friend;
My companions look at me, I look the other way.

That couplet suited the case wonderfully well. In that frothing-up of desire and passion, and under that stress of youthful folly, I used to wander, bare-head, bare-foot, through street and lane, orchard and vineyard. I shewed civility neither to friend nor stranger, took no care for myself or others.

Sometimes like the madmen, I used to wander alone over hill and plain; sometimes I betook myself to gardens and the suburbs, lane by lane. My wandering was not of my choice, not I decided whether to go or stay.

(s. Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s quarrels with the Tarkhāns.)

In this same year, Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā fell out with Muḥammad Mazīd Tarkhān for the following reasons; – The Tarkhāns had risen to over-much predominance and honour; Bāqī had taken the whole revenue of the Bukhārā Government and gave not a half-penny (dāng)⁵⁰³ to any-one else; Muḥammad Mazīd, for his part, had control in Samarkand and took all its districts for his sons and dependants; a small sum only excepted, fixed by them, not a farthing (fils) from the town reached the Mīrzā by any channel. Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā was a grown man; how was he to tolerate such conduct as theirs? He and some of his household formed a design against Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān; the latter came to know of it and left the town with all his following and with whatever begs and other persons were in sympathy with him,⁵⁰⁴ such as Sl. Ḥusain Arghūn, Pīr Aḥmad, Aūzūn Ḥasan’s younger brother, Khwāja Ḥusain, Qarā Barlās, Ṣāliḥ Muḥammad⁵⁰⁵ and some other begs and braves.

At the time The Khān had joined to Khān Mīrzā a number of Mughūl begs with Muḥ. Ḥusain Dūghlāt and Aḥmad Beg, and had appointed them to act against Samarkand.⁵⁰⁶ Khān Mīrzā’s guardians were Ḥāfiẓ Beg Dūldāī and his son, T̤āhir Beg; because of relationship to them, (Muḥ. Sīghal’s) grandson, Ḥasan and Hindū Beg fled with several braves from Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s presence to Khān Mīrzā’s.

Muḥammad Mazīd Tarkhān invited Khān Mīrzā and the Mughūl army, moved to near Shavdār, there saw the Mīrzā and met the begs of the Mughūls. No small useful friendlinesses however, came out of the meeting between his begs and the Mughūls; the latter indeed seem to have thought of making him a prisoner. Of this he and his begs coming to know, separated themselves from the Mughūl army. As without him the Mughūls could make no stand, they retired. Here-upon, Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā hurried light out of Samarkand with a few men and caught them up where they had dismounted in Yār-yīlāq. They could not even fight but were routed and put to flight. This deed, done in his last days, was Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s one good little affair.

Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān and his people, despairing both of the Mughūls and of these Mīrzās, sent Mīr Mughūl, son of ‘Abdu’l-wahhāb Shaghāwal⁵⁰⁷ to invite me (to Samarkand). Mīr Mughūl had already been in my service; he had risked his life in good accord with Khwāja-i-qāẓī during the siege of Andijān (903 AH. -1498 AD.).

This business hurt us also⁵⁰⁸ and, as it was for that purpose we had made peace (with Jahāngīr), we resolved to move on Samarkand. We sent Mīr Mughūl off at once to give rendezvous⁵⁰⁹ to Jahāngīr Mīrzā and prepared to get to horse. We rode out in the month of Ẕū’l-qa‘da (June) and with two halts on the way, came to Qabā and there dismounted.⁵¹⁰ At the mid-afternoon Prayer of that day, news came that Taṃbal’s brother, Khalīl had taken Aūsh by surprise.

The particulars are as follows; – As has been mentioned, Khalīl and those under him were set free when peace was made. Taṃbal then sent Khalīl to fetch away their wives and families from Aūzkīnt. He had gone and he went into the fort on this pretext. He kept saying untruthfully, ‘We will go out today,’ or ‘We will go out tomorrow,’ but he did not go. When we got to horse, he seized the chance of the emptiness of Aūsh to go by night and surprise it. For several reasons it was of no advantage for us to stay and entangle ourselves with him; we went straight on therefore. One reason was that as, for the purpose of making ready military equipment, all my men of name had scattered, heads of houses to their homes, we had no news of them because we had relied on the peace and were by this off our guard against the treachery and falsity of the other party. Another reason was that for some time, as has been said, the misconduct of our great begs, ‘Alī-dost and Qaṃbar-‘alī had been such that no confidence in them was left. A further reason was that the Samarkand begs, under Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān had sent Mīr Mughūl to invite us and, so long as a capital such as Samarkand stood there, what would incline a man to waste his days for a place like Andijān?

From Qabā we moved on to Marghīnān (20 m.). Marghīnān had been given to Qūch Beg’s father, Sl. Aḥmad Qarāwal, and he was then in it. As he, owing to various ties and attachments, could not attach himself to me,⁵¹¹ he stayed behind while his son, Qūch Beg and one or two of his brethren, older and younger, went with me.

Taking the road for Asfara, we dismounted in one of its villages, called Mahan. That night there came and joined us in Mahan, by splendid chance, just as if to a rendezvous, Qāsim Beg Qūchīn with his company, ‘Alī-dost with his, and Sayyid Qāsim with a large body of braves. We rode from Mahan by the Khasbān (var. Yasān) plain, crossed the Chūpān (Shepherd) – bridge and so to Aūrā-tīpā.⁵¹²

(t. Qaṃbar-‘alī punishes himself.)

Trusting to Taṃbal, Qaṃbar-‘alī went from his own district (Khujand) to Akhsī in order to discuss army-matters with him. Such an event happening,⁵¹³ Taṃbal laid hands on Qaṃbar-‘alī, marched against his district and carried him along. Here the (Turkī) proverb fits, ‘Distrust your friend! he’ll stuff your hide with straw.’ While Qaṃbar-‘alī was being made to go to Khujand, he escaped on foot and after a hundred difficulties reached Aūrā-tīpā.

News came to us there that Shaibānī Khān had beaten Bāqī Tarkhān in Dabūsī and was moving on Bukhārā. We went on from Aūrā-tīpā, by way of Burka-yīlāq, to Sangzār⁵¹⁴ which the sub-governor surrendered. There we placed Qaṃbar-‘alī, as, after effecting his own capture and betrayal, he had come to us. We then passed on.

(u. Affairs of Samarkand and the end of ‘Alī-dost.)

On our arrival in Khān-yūrtī, the Samarkand begs under Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān came and did me obeisance. Conference was held with them as to details for taking the town; they said, ‘Khwāja Yaḥya also is wishing for the pādshāh;⁵¹⁵ with his consent the town may be had easily without fighting or disturbance.’ The Khwāja did not say decidedly to our messengers that he had resolved to admit us to the town but at the same time, he said nothing likely to lead us to despair.

Leaving Khān-yūrtī, we moved to the bank of the Dar-i-gham (canal) and from there sent our librarian, Khwāja Muḥammad ‘Alī to Khwāja Yaḥya. He brought word back, ‘Let them come; we will give them the town.’ Accordingly we rode from the Dar-i-gham straight for the town, at night-fall, but our plan came to nothing because Sl. Muḥammad Dūldāī’s father, Sl. Maḥmūd had fled from our camp and given such information to (Sl. ‘Alī’s party) as put them on their guard. Back we went to the Dar-i-gham bank.

While I had been in Yār-yīlāq, one of my favoured begs, Ibrāhīm Sārū who had been plundered and driven off by ‘Alī-dost,⁵¹⁶ came and did me obeisance, together with Muḥ. Yūsuf, the elder son of Sayyid Yūsuf (Aūghlāqchī). Coming in by ones and twos, old family servants and begs and some of the household gathered back to me there. All were enemies of ‘Alī-dost; some he had driven away; others he had plundered; others again he had imprisoned. He became afraid. For why? Because with Taṃbal’s backing, he had harassed and persecuted me and my well-wishers. As for me, my very nature sorted ill with the manikin’s! From shame and fear, he could stay no longer with us; he asked leave; I took it as a personal favour; I gave it. On this leave, he and his son, Muḥammad-dost went to Taṃbal’s presence. They became his intimates, and from father and son alike, much evil and sedition issued. ‘Alī-dost died a few years later from ulceration of the hand. Muḥammad-dost went amongst the Aūzbegs; that was not altogether bad but, after some treachery to his salt, he fled from them and went into the Andijān foot-hills.⁵¹⁷ There he stirred up much revolt and trouble. In the end he fell into the hands of Aūzbeg people and they blinded him. The meaning of ‘The salt took his eyes,’ is clear in his case.⁵¹⁸

After giving this pair their leave, we sent Ghūrī Barlās toward Bukhārā for news. He brought word that Shaibānī Khān had taken Bukhārā and was on his way to Samarkand. Here-upon, seeing no advantage in staying in that neighbourhood, we set out for Kesh where, moreover, were the families of most of the Samarkand begs.

When we had been a few weeks there, news came that Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā had given Samarkand to Shaibānī Khān. The particulars are these; – The Mīrzā’s mother, Zuhra Begī Āghā

(Aūzbeg), in her ignorance and folly, had secretly written to Shaibānī Khān that if he would take her (to wife) her son should give him Samarkand and that when Shaibānī had taken (her son’s) father’s country, he should give her son a country.⁵¹⁹ Sayyid Yūsuf Arghūn must have known of this plan, indeed will have been the traitor inventing it.

906 AH. – JULY 28th. 1500 to JULY 17th. 1501 AD.⁵²⁰

(a. Samarkand in the hands of the Aūzbegs.)

When, acting on that woman’s promise, Shaibānī Khān went to Samarkand, he dismounted in the Garden of the Plain. About mid-day Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā went out to him through the Four-roads Gate, without a word to any of his begs or unmailed braves, without taking counsel with any-one soever and accompanied only by a few men of little consideration from his own close circle. The Khān, for his part, did not receive him very favourably; when they had seen one another, he seated him on his less honourable hand.⁵²¹ Khwāja Yaḥya, on hearing of the Mīrzā’s departure, became very anxious but as he could find no remedy,⁵²² went out also. The Khān looked at him without rising and said a few words in which blame had part, but when the Khwāja rose to leave, showed him the respect of rising.

As soon as Khwāja ‘Alī⁵²³ Bāy’s⁵²⁴ son, Jān-‘alī heard in Rabāt̤-i-khwāja of the Mīrzā’s going to Shaibānī Khān, he also went. As for that calamitous woman who, in her folly, gave her son’s house and possessions to the winds in order to get herself a husband, Shaibānī Khān cared not one atom for her, indeed did not regard her as the equal of a mistress or a concubine.⁵²⁵

Confounded by his own act, Sl. ‘Alī Mīrzā’s repentance was extreme. Some of his close circle, after hearing particulars, planned for him to escape with them but to this he would not agree; his hour had come; he was not to be freed. He had dismounted in Tīmūr Sult̤ān’s quarters; three or four days later they killed him in Plough-meadow.⁵²⁶ For a matter of this five-days’ mortal life, he died with a bad name; having entered into a woman’s affairs, he withdrew himself from the circle of men of good repute. Of such people’s doings no more should be written; of acts so shameful, no more should be heard.

The Mīrzā having been killed, Shaibānī Khān sent Jān-‘alī after his Mīrzā. He had apprehensions also about Khwāja Yaḥya and therefore dismissed him, with his two sons, Khwāja Muḥ. Zakarīya and Khwāja Bāqī, towards Khurāsān.⁵²⁷ A few Aūzbegs followed them and near Khwāja Kārdzan martyred both the Khwāja and his two young sons. Though Shaibānī’s words were, ‘Not through me the Khwāja’s affair! Qaṃbar Bī and Kūpuk Bī did it,’ this is worse than that! There is a proverb,⁵²⁸ ‘His excuse is worse than his fault,’ for if begs, out of their own heads, start such deeds, unknown to their Khāns or Pādshāhs, what becomes of the authority of khānship and and sovereignty?

(b. Bābur leaves Kesh and crosses the Mūra pass.)

Since the Aūzbegs were in possession of Samarkand, we left Kesh and went in the direction of Ḥiṣār. With us started off Muḥ. Mazīd Tārkhān and the Samarkand begs under his command, together with their wives and families and people, but when we dismounted in the Chultū meadow of Chaghānīān, they parted from us, went to Khusrau Shāh and became his retainers.

Cut off from our own abiding-town and country,⁵²⁹ not knowing where (else) to go or where to stay, we were obliged to traverse the very heart of Khusrau Shāh’s districts, spite of what measure of misery he had inflicted on the men of our dynasty!

One of our plans had been to go to my younger Khān dādā, i. e. Alacha Khān, by way of Qarā-tīgīn and the Alāī,⁵³⁰ but this was not managed. Next we were for going up the valley of the Kām torrent and over the Sara-tāq pass (dābān). When we were near Nūnḍāk, a servant of Khusrau Shāh brought me one set of nine horses⁵³¹ and one of nine pieces of cloth. When we dismounted at the mouth of the Kām valley, Sher-‘alī. the page, deserted to Khusrau Shāh’s brother, Walī and, next day, Qūch Beg parted from us and went to Ḥiṣār.⁵³²

We entered the valley and made our way up it. On its steep and narrow roads and at its sharp and precipitous saddles⁵³³ many horses and camels were left. Before we reached the Sara-tāq pass we had (in 25 m.) to make three or four night-halts. A pass! and what a pass! Never was such a steep and narrow pass seen; never were traversed such ravines and precipices. Those dangerous narrows and sudden falls, those perilous heights and knife-edge saddles, we got through with much difficulty and suffering, with countless hardships and miseries. Amongst the Fān mountains is a large lake (Iskandar); it is 2 miles in circumference, a beautiful lake and not devoid of marvels.⁵³⁴

News came that Ibrāhīm Tarkhān had strengthened Fort Shīrāz and was seated in it; also that Qaṃbar-‘alī (the Skinner) and Abū’l-qāsim Kohbur, the latter not being able to stay in Khwāja Dīdār with the Aūzbegs in Samarkand, – had both come into Yār-yīlāq, strengthened its lower forts and occupied them.

Leaving Fān on our right, we moved on for Keshtūd. The head-man of Fān had a reputation for hospitality, generosity, serviceableness and kindness. He had given tribute of 70 or 80 horses to Sl. Mas‘ūd Mīrzā at the time the Mīrzā, when Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā made attack on Ḥiṣār, went through Fān on his way to his younger brother, Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā in Samarkand. He did like service to others. To me he sent one second-rate horse; moreover he did not wait on me himself. So it was! Those renowned for liberality became misers when they had to do with me, and the politeness of the polite was forgotten. Khusrau Shāh was celebrated for liberality and kindness; what service he did Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā has been mentioned; to Bāqī Tarkhān and other begs he shewed great generosity also. Twice I happened to pass through his country;⁵³⁵ not to speak of courtesy shewn to my peers, what he shewed to my lowest servants he did not shew to me, indeed he shewed less regard for us than for them.

Under the impression that the Aūzbegs were in Keshtūd, we made an excursion to it, after passing Fān. Of itself it seemed to have gone to ruin; no-one seemed to be occupying it. We went on to the bank of the Kohik-water (Zar-afshān) and there dismounted. From that place we sent a few begs under Qāsim Qūchīn to surprise Rabāt̤-i-khwāja; that done, we crossed the river by a bridge from opposite Yārī, went through Yārī and over the Shunqār-khāna (Falcons’-home) range into Yār-yīlāq. Our begs went to Rabāt̤-i-khwāja and had set up ladders when the men within came to know about them and forced them to retire. As they could not take the fort, they rejoined us.

(c. Bābur renews attack on Samarkand.)

Qaṃbar-‘alī (the Skinner) was (still) holding Sangzār; he came and saw us; Abū’l-qāsim Kohbur and Ibrāhīm Tarkhān showed loyalty and attachment by sending efficient men for our service. We went into Asfīdik (var. Asfīndik), one of the Yār-yīlāq villages. At that time Shaibāq Khān lay near Khwāja Dīdār with 3 or 4000 Aūzbegs and as many more soldiers gathered in locally. He had given the Government of Samarkand to Jān-wafā, and Jān-wafā was then in the fort with 500 or 600 men. Ḥamza Sl. and Mahdī Sl. were lying near the fort, in the Quail-reserve. Our men, good and bad were 240.

Having discussed the position with all my begs and unmailed braves, we left it at this; – that as Shaibānī Khān had taken possession of Samarkand so recently, the Samarkandīs would not be attached to him nor he to them; that if we made an effort at once, we might do the thing; that if we set ladders up and took the fort by surprise, the Samarkandīs would be for us; how should they not be? even if they gave us no help, they would not fight us for the Aūzbegs; and that Samarkand once in our hands, whatever was God’s will, would happen.

Acting on this decision, we rode out of Yār-yīlāq after the Mid-day Prayer, and on through the dark till mid-night when we reached Khān-yūrtī. Here we had word that the Samarkandīs knew of our coming; for this reason we went no nearer to the town but made straight back from Khān-yūrtī. It was dawn when, after crossing the Kohik-water below Rabāt̤-i-khwāja, we were once more in Yār-yīlāq.

One day in Fort Asfīdik a household party was sitting in my presence; Dost-i-nāṣir and Nuyān⁵³⁶ Kūkūldāsh and Khān-qulī-i-Karīm-dād and Shaikh Darwesh and Mīrīm-i-nāṣir were all there. Words were crossing from all sides when (I said), ‘Come now! say when, if God bring it right, we shall take Samarkand.’ Some said, ‘We shall take it in the heats.’ It was then late in autumn. Others said, ‘In a month,’ ‘Forty days,’ ‘Twenty days.’ Nuyān Kūkūldāsh said, ‘We shall take it in 14.’ God shewed him right! we did take it in exactly 14 days.

Just at that time I had a wonderful dream; – His Highness Khwāja ‘Ubaid’l-lāh (Aḥrārī) seemed to come; I seemed to go out to give him honourable meeting; he came in and seated himself; people seemed to lay a table-cloth before him, apparently without sufficient care and, on account of this, something seemed to come into his Highness Khwāja’s mind. Mullā Bābā (? Pashāgharī) made me a sign; I signed back, ‘Not through me! the table-layer is in fault!’ The Khwāja understood and accepted the excuse.⁵³⁷ When he rose, I escorted him out. In the hall of that house he took hold of either my right or left arm and lifted me up till one of my feet was off the ground, saying, in Turkī, ‘Shaikh Maṣlaḥat has given (Samarkand).’⁵³⁸ I really took Samarkand a few days later.

(d. Bābur takes Samarkand by surprise.)

In two or three days move was made from Fort Asfīdik to Fort Wasmand. Although by our first approach, we had let our plan be known, we put our trust in God and made another expedition to Samarkand. It was after the Mid-day Prayer that we rode out of Fort Wasmand, Khwāja Abū’l-makāram accompanying us. By mid-night we reached the Deep-fosse-bridge in the Avenue. From there we sent forward a detachment of 70 or 80 good men who were to set up ladders opposite the Lovers’-cave, mount them and get inside, stand up to those in the Turquoise Gate, get possession of it and send a man to me. Those braves went, set their ladders up opposite the Lovers’-cave, got in without making anyone aware, went to the Gate, attacked Fāẓil Tarkhān, chopped at him and his few retainers, killed them, broke the lock with an axe and opened the Gate. At that moment I came up and went in.

(Author’s note on Fāẓil Tarkhān.) He was not one of those (Samarkand) Tarkhāns; he was a merchant-tarkhān of Turkistān. He had served Shaibānī Khān in Turkistān and had found favour with him.⁵³⁹

Abū’l-qāsim Kohbur himself had not come with us but had sent 30 or 40 of his retainers under his younger brother, Aḥmad-i-qāsim. No man of Ibrāhīm Tarkhān’s was with us; his younger brother, Aḥmad Tarkhān came with a few retainers after I had entered the town and taken post in the Monastery.

The towns-people were still slumbering; a few traders peeped out of their shops, recognized me and put up prayers. When, a little later, the news spread through the town, there was rare delight and satisfaction for our men and the towns-folk. They killed the Aūzbegs in the lanes and gullies with clubs and stones like mad dogs; four or five hundred were killed in this fashion. Jān-wafā, the then governor, was living in Khwāja Yaḥya’s house; he fled and got away to Shaibāq Khān.⁵⁴⁰

On entering the Turquoise Gate I went straight to the College and took post over the arch of the Monastery. There was a hubbub and shouting of ‘Down! down!’ till day-break. Some of the notables and traders, hearing what was happening, came joyfully to see me, bringing what food was ready and putting up prayers for me. At day-light we had news that the Aūzbegs were fighting in the Iron Gate where they had made themselves fast between the (outer and inner) doors. With 10, 15 or 20 men, I at once set off for the Gate but before I came up, the town-rabble, busy ransacking every corner of the newly-taken town for loot, had driven the Aūzbegs out through it. Shaibāq Khān, on hearing what was happening, hurried at sun-rise to the Iron Gate with 100 or 140 men. His coming was a wonderful chance but, as has been said, my men were very few. Seeing that he could do nothing, he rode off at once. From the Iron Gate I went to the citadel and there dismounted, at the Bū-stān palace. Men of rank and consequence and various head-men came to me there, saw me and invoked blessings on me.

Samarkand for nearly 140 years had been the capital of our dynasty. An alien, and of what stamp! an Aūzbeg foe, had taken possession of it! It had slipped from our hands; God gave it again! plundered and ravaged, our own returned to us.

Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā took Harāt⁵⁴¹ as we took Samarkand, by surprise, but to the experienced, and discerning, and just, it will be clear that between his affair and mine there are distinctions and differences, and that his capture and mine are things apart.

Firstly there is this; – He had ruled many years, passed through much experience and seen many affairs.

Secondly; – He had for opponent, Yādgār Muḥ. Nāṣir Mīrzā, an inexperienced boy of 17 or 18.

Thirdly; – (Yādgār Mīrzā’s) Head-equerry, Mīr ‘Alī, a person well-acquainted with the particulars of the whole position, sent a man out from amongst Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā’s opponents to bring him to surprise them.

Fourthly; – His opponent was not in the fort but was in the Ravens’-garden. Moreover Yādgār Muḥ. Nāṣir Mīrzā and his followers are said to have been so prostrate with drink that three men only were in the Gate, they also drunk.

Fifthly; – he surprised and captured Harāt the first time he approached it.

On the other hand: firstly; – I was 19 when I took Samarkand.

Secondly; – I had as my opponent, such a man as Shaibāq Khān, of mature age and an eye-witness of many affairs.

Thirdly; – No-one came out of Samarkand to me; though the heart of its people was towards me, no-one could dream of coming, from dread of Shaibāq Khān.

Fourthly; – My foe was in the fort; not only was the fort taken but he was driven off.

Fifthly; – I had come once already; my opponent was on his guard about me. The second time we came, God brought it right! Samarkand was won.

In saying these things there is no desire to be-little the reputation of any man; the facts were as here stated. In writing these things, there is no desire to magnify myself; the truth is set down.

The poets composed chronograms on the victory; this one remains in my memory; – Wisdom answered, ‘Know that its date is the Victory (Fatḥ) of Bābur Bahādur.’

Samarkand being taken, Shavdār and Soghd and the tūmāns and nearer forts began, one after another, to return to us. From some their Aūzbeg commandants fled in fear and escaped; from others the inhabitants drove them and came in to us; in some they made them prisoner, and held the forts for us.

Just then the wives and families of Shaibāq Khān and his Aūzbegs arrived from Turkistān;⁵⁴² he was lying near Khwāja Dīdār and ‘Alī-ābād but when he saw the forts and people returning to me, marched off towards Bukhārā. By God’s grace, all the forts of Soghd and Miyān-kāl returned to me within three or four months. Over and above this, Bāqī Tarkhān seized this opportunity to occupy Qarshī; Khuzār and Qarshī (? Kesh) both went out of Aūzbeg hands; Qarā-kūl also was taken from them by people of Abū’l-muḥsin Mīrzā (Bāī-qarā), coming up from Merv. My affairs were in a very good way.

(e. Birth of Bābur’s first child.)

After our departure (last year) from Andijān, my mothers and my wife and relations came, with a hundred difficulties and hardships, to Aūrātīpā. We now sent for them to Samarkand. Within a few days after their arrival, a daughter was born to me by ‘Āyisha-sult̤ān Begīm, my first wife, the daughter of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā. They named the child Fakhru’n-nisā’ (Ornament of women); she was my first-born, I was 19. In a month or 40 days, she went to God’s mercy.

(f. Bābur in Samarkand.)

On taking Samarkand, envoys and summoners were sent off at once, and sent again and again, with reiterated request for aid and reinforcement, to the khāns and sult̤āns and begs and marchers on every side. Some, though experienced men, made foolish refusal; others whose relations towards our family had been discourteous and unpleasant, were afraid for themselves and took no notice; others again, though they sent help, sent it insufficient. Each such case will be duly mentioned.

When Samarkand was taken the second time, ‘Alī-sher Beg was alive. We exchanged letters once; on the back of mine to him I wrote one of my Turkī couplets. Before his reply reached me, separations (tafarqa) and disturbances (ghūghā) had happened.⁵⁴³ Mullā Binā’ī had been taken into Shaibāq Khān’s service when the latter took possession of Samarkand; he stayed with him until a few days after I took the place, when he came into the town to me. Qāsim Beg had his suspicions about him and consequently dismissed him towards Shahr-i-sabz but, as he was a man of parts, and as no fault of his came to light, I had him fetched back. He constantly presented me with odes (qaṣīda u ghazal). He brought me a song in the Nawā mode composed to my name and at the same time the following quatrain; —⁵⁴⁴

No grain (ghala) have I by which I can be fed (noshīd);
No rhyme of grain (mallah, nankeen) wherewith I can be clad (poshīd);
The man who lacks both food and clothes,
In art or science where can he compete (koshīd)?

In those days of respite, I had written one or two couplets but had not completed an ode. As an answer to Mullā Binā’ī I made up and set this poor little Turkī quatrain; —⁵⁴⁵

As is the wish of your heart, so shall it be (būlghūsīdūr);
For gift and stipend both an order shall be made (buyurūlghūsīdūr);
I know the grain and its rhyme you write of;
The garments, you, your house, the corn shall fill (tūlghūsīdūr).

The Mullā in return wrote and presented a quatrain to me in which for his refrain, he took a rhyme to (the tūlghūsīdūr of) my last line and chose another rhyme; —

Mīrzā-of-mine, the Lord of sea and land shall be (yīr būlghūsīdūr);
His art and skill, world o’er, the evening tale shall be (samar būlghūsīdūr);
If gifts like these reward one rhyming (or pointless) word;
For words of sense, what guerdon will there be (nilār būlghūsīdūr)?

Abū’l-barka, known as Farāqi (Parted), who just then had come to Samarkand from Shahr-i-sabz, said Binā’ī ought to have rhymed. He made this verse; —

Into Time’s wrong to you quest shall be made (sūrūlghūsīdūr);
Your wish the Sult̤ān’s grace from Time shall ask (qūlghūsīdūr);
O Ganymede! our cups, ne’er filled as yet,
In this new Age, brimmed-up, filled full shall be (tūlghūsīdūr).

Though this winter our affairs were in a very good way and Shaibāq Khān’s were on the wane, one or two occurrences were somewhat of a disservice; (1) the Merv men who had taken Qarā-kūl, could not be persuaded to stay there and it went back into the hands of the Aūzbegs; (2) Shaibāq Khān besieged Ibrāhīm Tarkhān’s younger brother, Aḥmad in Dabūsī, stormed the place and made a general massacre of its inhabitants before the army we were collecting was ready to march.

With 240 proved men I had taken Samarkand; in the next five or six months, things so fell out by the favour of the Most High God, that, as will be told, we fought the arrayed battle of Sar-i-pul with a man like Shaibāq Khān. The help those round-about gave us was as follows; – From The Khān had come, with 4 or 5000 Bārīns, Ayūb Begchīk and Qashka Maḥmūd; from Jahāngīr Mīrzā had come Khalīl, Taṃbal’s younger brother, with 100 or 200 men; not a man had come from Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, that experienced ruler, than whom none knew better the deeds and dealings of Shaibāq Khān; none came from Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā; none from Khusrau Shāh because he, the author of what evil done, – as has been told, – to our dynasty! feared us more than he feared Shaibāq Khān.

(g. Bābur defeated at Sar-i-pul.)

I marched out of Samarkand, with the wish of fighting Shaibāq Khān, in the month of Shawwāl⁵⁴⁶ and went to the New-garden where we lay four or five days for the convenience of gathering our men and completing our equipment. We took the precaution of fortifying our camp with ditch and branch. From the New-garden we advanced, march by march, to beyond Sar-i-pul (Bridge-head) and there dismounted. Shaibāq Khān came from the opposite direction and dismounted at Khwāja Kārdzan, perhaps one yīghāch away (? 5 m.). We lay there for four or five days. Every day our people went from our side and his came from theirs and fell on one another. One day when they were in unusual force, there was much fighting but neither side had the advantage. Out of that engagement one of our men went rather hastily back into the entrenchments; he was using a standard; some said it was Sayyidī Qarā Beg’s standard who really was a man of strong words but weak sword. Shaibāq Khān made one night-attack on us but could do nothing because the camp was protected by ditch and close-set branches. His men raised their war-cry, rained in arrows from outside the ditch and then retired.

In the work for the coming battle I exerted myself greatly and took all precautions; Qaṃbar-‘alī also did much. In Kesh lay Bāqī Tarkhān with 1000 to 2000 men, in a position to join us after a couple of days. In Diyūl, 4 yīghāch off (? 20 m.), lay Sayyid Muḥ. Mīrzā Dūghlāt, bringing me 1000 to 2000 men from my Khān dādā; he would have joined me at dawn. With matters in this position, we hurried on the fight!

Who lays with haste his hand on the sword,
Shall lift to his teeth the back-hand of regret.⁵⁴⁷

The reason I was so eager to engage was that on the day of battle, the Eight stars⁵⁴⁸ were between the two armies; they would have been in the enemy’s rear for 13 or 14 days if the fight had been deferred. I now understand that these considerations are worth nothing and that our haste was without reason.

As we wished to fight, we marched from our camp at dawn, we in our mail, our horses in theirs, formed up in array of right and left, centre and van. Our right was Ibrāhīm Sārū, Ibrāhīm Jānī, Abū’l-qāsim Kohbur and other begs. Our left was Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān, Ibrāhīm Tarkhān and other Samarkandī begs, also Sl. Ḥusain Arghūn, Qarā (Black) Barlās, Pīr Aḥmad and Khwāja Ḥusain. Qāsim Beg was (with me) in the centre and also several of my close circle and household. In the van were inscribed Qaṃbar-‘alī the Skinner, Banda-‘alī, Khwāja ‘Alī, Mīr Shāh Qūchīn, Sayyid Qāsim, Lord of the Gate, – Banda-‘alī’s younger brother Khaldar (mole-marked) and Ḥaidar-i-qāsim’s son Qūch, together with all the good braves there were, and the rest of the household.

Thus arrayed, we marched from our camp; the enemy, also in array, marched out from his. His right was Maḥmūd and Jānī and Tīmūr Sult̤āns; his left, Ḥamza and Mahdī and some other sult̤āns. When our two armies approached one another, he wheeled his right towards our rear. To meet this, I turned; this left our van, – in which had been inscribed what not of our best braves and tried swordsmen! – to our right and bared our front (i. e. the front of the centre). None-the-less we fought those who made the front-attack on us, turned them and forced them back on their own centre. So far did we carry it that some of Shaibāq Khān’s old chiefs said to him, ‘We must move off! It is past a stand.’ He however held fast. His right beat our left, then wheeled (again) to our rear.

(As has been said), the front of our centre was bare through our van’s being left to the right. The enemy attacked us front and rear, raining in arrows on us. (Ayūb Begchīk’s) Mughūl army, come for our help! was of no use in fighting; it set to work forthwith to unhorse and plunder our men. Not this once only! This is always the way with those ill-omened Mughūls! If they win, they grab at booty; if they lose, they unhorse and pilfer their own side! We drove back the Aūzbegs who attacked our front by several vigorous assaults, but those who had wheeled to our rear came up and rained arrows on our standard. Falling on us in this way, from the front and from the rear, they made our men hurry off.

This same turning-movement is one of the great merits of Aūzbeg fighting; no battle of theirs is ever without it. Another merit of theirs is that they all, begs and retainers, from their front to their rear, ride, loose-rein at the gallop, shouting as they come and, in retiring, do not scatter but ride off, at the gallop, in a body.

Ten or fifteen men were left with me. The Kohik-water was close by, – the point of our right had rested on it. We made straight for it. It was the season when it comes down in flood. We rode right into it, man and horse in mail. It was just fordable for half-way over; after that it had to be swum. For more than an arrow’s flight⁵⁴⁹ we, man and mount in mail! made our horses swim and so got across. Once out of the water, we cut off the horse-armour and let it lie. By thus passing to the north bank of the river, we were free of our foes, but at once Mughūl wretches were the captors and pillagers of one after another of my friends. Ibrāhīm Tarkhān and some others, excellent braves all, were unhorsed and killed by Mughūls.⁵⁵⁰ We moved along the north bank of the Kohik-river, recrossed it near Qulba, entered the town by the Shaikh-zāda’s Gate and reached the citadel in the middle of the afternoon.

Begs of our greatest, braves of our best and many men perished in that fight. There died Ibrāhīm Tarkhān, Ibrāhīm Sārū and Ibrāhīm Jānī; oddly enough three great begs named Ibrāhīm perished. There died also Ḥaidar-i-qāsim’s eldest son, Abū’l-qāsim Kohbur, and Khudāī-bīrdī Tūghchī and Khalīl, Taṃbal’s younger brother, spoken of already several times. Many of our men fled in different directions; Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān went towards Qūndūz and Ḥiṣār for Khusrau Shāh. Some of the household and of the braves, such as Karīm-dad-i-Khudāī-bīrdī Turkmān and Jānaka Kūkūldāsh and Mullā Bābā of Pashāghar got away to Aūrā-tīpā. Mullā Bābā at that time was not in my service but had gone out with me in a guest’s fashion. Others again, did what Sherīm T̤aghāī and his band did; – though he had come back with me into the town and though when consultation was had, he had agreed with the rest to make the fort fast, looking for life or death within it, yet spite of this, and although my mothers and sisters, elder and younger, stayed on in Samarkand, he sent off their wives and families to Aūrā-tīpā and remained himself with just a few men, all unencumbered. Not this once only! Whenever hard work had to be done, low and double-minded action was the thing to expect from him!

(h. Bābur besieged in Samarkand.)

Next day, I summoned Khwāja Abū’l-makāram, Qāsim and the other begs, the household and such of the braves as were admitted to our counsels, when after consultation, we resolved to make the fort fast and to look for life or death within it. I and Qāsim Beg with my close circle and household were the reserve. For convenience in this I took up quarters in the middle of the town, in tents pitched on the roof of Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā’s College. To other begs and braves posts were assigned in the Gates or on the ramparts of the walled-town.

Two or three days later, Shaibāq Khān dismounted at some distance from the fort. On this, the town-rabble came out of lanes and wards, in crowds, to the College gate, shouted good wishes for me and went out to fight in mob-fashion. Shaibāq Khān had got to horse but could not so much as approach the town. Several days went by in this fashion. The mob and rabble, knowing nothing of sword and arrow-wounds, never witnesses of the press and carnage of a stricken field, through these incidents, became bold and began to sally further and further out. If warned by the braves against going out so incautiously, they broke into reproach.

One day when Shaibāq Khān had directed his attack towards the Iron Gate, the mob, grown bold, went out, as usual, daringly and far. To cover their retreat, we sent several braves towards the Camel’s-neck,⁵⁵¹ foster-brethren and some of the close household-circle, such as Nuyān Kūkūldāsh, Qul-naz̤ar (son of Sherīm?) T̤aghāī Beg, and Mazīd. An Aūzbeg or two put their horses at them and with Qul-naz̤ar swords were crossed. The rest of the Aūzbegs dismounted and brought their strength to bear on the rabble, hustled them off and rammed them in through the Iron Gate. Qūch Beg and Mīr Shāh Qūchīn had dismounted at the side of Khwāja Khiẓr’s Mosque and were making a stand there. While the townsmen were being moved off by those on foot, a party of mounted Aūzbegs rode towards the Mosque. Qūch Beg came out when they drew near and exchanged good blows with them. He did distinguished work; all stood to watch. Our fugitives below were occupied only with their own escape; for them the time to shoot arrows and make a stand had gone by. I was shooting with a slur-bow⁵⁵² from above the Gate and some of my circle were shooting arrows (aūq). Our attack from above kept the enemy from advancing beyond the Mosque; from there he retired.

During the siege, the round of the ramparts was made each night; sometimes I went, sometimes Qāsim Beg, sometimes one of the household Begs. Though from the Turquoise to the Shaikh-zāda’s Gate may be ridden, the rest of the way must be walked. When some men went the whole round on foot, it was dawn before they had finished.⁵⁵³

One day Shaibāq Khān attacked between the Iron Gate and the Shaikh-zāda’s. I, as the reserve, went to the spot, without anxiety about the Bleaching-ground and Needle-makers’ Gates. That day, (?) in a shooting wager (aūq aūchīdā), I made a good shot with a slur-bow, at a Centurion’s horse.⁵⁵⁴ It died at once (aūq bārdī) with the arrow (aūq bīla). They made such a vigorous attack this time that they got close under the ramparts. Busy with the fighting and the stress near the Iron Gate, we were entirely off our guard about the other side of the town. There, opposite the space between the Needle-makers’ and Bleaching-ground Gates, the enemy had posted 7 or 800 good men in ambush, having with them 24 or 25 ladders so wide that two or three could mount abreast. These men came from their ambush when the attack near the Iron Gate, by occupying all our men, had left those other posts empty, and quickly set up their ladders between the two Gates, just where a road leads from the ramparts to Muḥ. Mazīd Tarkhān’s houses. That post was Qūch Beg’s and Muḥammad-qulī Qūchīn’s, with their detachment of braves, and they had their quarters in Muḥ. Mazīd’s houses. In the Needle-makers’ Gate was posted Qarā (Black) Barlās, in the Bleaching-ground Gate, Qūtlūq Khwāja Kūkūldāsh with Sherīm T̤aghāī and his brethren, older and younger. As attack was being made on the other side of the town, the men attached to these posts were not on guard but had scattered to their quarters or to the bazar for necessary matters of service and servants’ work. Only the begs were at their posts, with one or two of the populace. Qūch Beg and Mūhammad-qulī and Shāh Ṣufī and one other brave did very well and boldly. Some Aūzbegs were on the ramparts, some were coming up, when these four men arrived at a run, dealt them blow upon blow, and, by energetic drubbing, forced them all down and put them to flight. Qūch Beg did best; this was his out-standing and approved good deed; twice during this siege he got his hand into the work. Qarā Barlās had been left alone in the Needle-makers’ Gate; he also held out well to the end. Qūtlūq Khwāja and Qul-naz̤ar Mīrzā were also at their posts in the Bleaching-ground Gate; they held out well too, and charged the foe in his rear.

Another time Qāsim Beg led his braves out through the Needle-makers’ Gate, pursued the Aūzbegs as far as Khwāja Kafsher, unhorsed some and returned with a few heads.

It was now the time of ripening rain but no-one brought new corn into the town. The long siege caused great privation to the towns-people;⁵⁵⁵ it went so far that the poor and destitute began to eat the flesh of dogs and asses and, as there was little grain for the horses, people fed them on leaves. Experience shewed that the leaves best suiting were those of the mulberry and elm (qarā-yīghāch). Some people scraped dry wood and gave the shavings, damped, to their horses.

For three or four months Shaibāq Khān did not come near the fort but had it invested at some distance and himself moved round it from post to post. Once when our men were off their guard, at mid-night, the enemy came near to the Turquoise Gate, beat his drums and flung his war-cry out. I was in the College, undressed. There was great trepidation and anxiety. After that they came night after night, disturbing us by drumming and shouting their war-cry.

Although envoys and messengers had been sent repeatedly to all sides and quarters, no help and reinforcement arrived from any-one. No-one had helped or reinforced me when I was in strength and power and had suffered no sort of defeat or loss; on what score would any-one help me now? No hope in any-one whatever recommended us to prolong the siege. The old saying was that to hold a fort there must be a head, two hands and two legs, that is to say, the Commandant is the head; help and reinforcement coming from two quarters are the two arms and the food and water in the fort are the two legs. While we looked for help from those round about, their thoughts were elsewhere. That brave and experienced ruler, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, gave us not even the help of an encouraging message, but none-the-less he sent Kamālu’d-dīn Ḥusain Gāzur-gāhī⁵⁵⁶ as an envoy to Shaibāq Khān.

(i. Taṃbal’s proceedings in Farghāna.)⁵⁵⁷

(This year) Taṃbal marched from Andijān to near Bīsh-kīnt.⁵⁵⁸ Aḥmad Beg and his party, thereupon, made The Khān move out against him. The two armies came face to face near Lak-lakān and the Tūrāk Four-gardens but separated without engaging. Sl. Maḥmūd was not a fighting man; now when opposed to Taṃbal, he shewed want of courage in word and deed. Aḥmad Beg was unpolished⁵⁵⁹ but brave and well-meaning. In his very rough way, he said, ‘What’s the measure of this person, Taṃbal? that you are so tormented with fear and fright about him. If you are afraid to look at him, bandage your eyes before you go out to face him.’

907 AH. – JULY 17th. 1501 to JULY 7th. 1502 AD.⁵⁶⁰

(a. Surrender of Samarkand to Shaibānī.)

The siege drew on to great length; no provisions and supplies came in from any quarter, no succour and reinforcement from any side. The soldiers and peasantry became hopeless and, by ones and twos, began to let themselves down outside⁵⁶¹ the walls and flee. On Shaibāq Khān’s hearing of the distress in the town, he came and dismounted near the Lovers’-cave. I, in turn, went to Malik-muḥammad Mīrzā’s dwellings in Low-lane, over against him. On one of those days, Khwāja Ḥusain’s brother, Aūzūn Ḥasan⁵⁶² came into the town with 10 or 15 of his men, – he who, as has been told, had been the cause of Jahāngīr Mīrzā’s rebellion, of my exodus from Samarkand (903 AH. – March 1498 AD.) and, again! of what an amount of sedition and disloyalty! That entry of his was a very bold act.⁵⁶³

The soldiery and townspeople became more and more distressed. Trusted men of my close circle began to let themselves down from the ramparts and get away; begs of known name and old family servants were amongst them, such as Pīr Wais, Shaikh Wais and Wais Lāgharī.⁵⁶⁴ Of help from any side we utterly despaired; no hope was left in any quarter; our supplies and provisions were wretched, what there was was coming to an end; no more came in. Meantime Shaibāq Khān interjected talk of peace.⁵⁶⁵ Little ear would have been given to his talk of peace, if there had been hope or food from any side. It had to be! a sort of peace was made and we took our departure from the town, by the Shaikh-zāda’s Gate, somewhere about midnight.

(b. Bābur leaves Samarkand.)

I took my mother Khānīm out with me; two other women-folk went too, one was Bīshka (var. Peshka) – i-Khalīfa, the other, Mīnglīk Kūkūldāsh.⁵⁶⁶ At this exodus, my elder sister, Khān-zāda Begīm fell into Shaibāq Khān’s hands.⁵⁶⁷ In the darkness of that night we lost our way⁵⁶⁸ and wandered about amongst the main irrigation channels of Soghd. At shoot of dawn, after a hundred difficulties, we got past Khwāja Dīdār. At the Sunnat Prayer we scrambled up the rising-ground of Qarā-būgh. From the north slope of Qarā-būgh we hurried on past the foot of Judūk village and dropped down into Yīlān-aūtī. On the road I raced with Qāsim Beg and Qaṃbar-‘alī (the Skinner); my horse was leading when I, thinking to look at theirs behind, twisted myself round; the girth may have slackened, for my saddle turned and I was thrown on my head to the ground. Although I at once got up and remounted, my brain did not steady till the evening; till then this world and what went on appeared to me like things felt and seen in a dream or fancy. Towards afternoon we dismounted in Yīlān-aūtī, there killed a horse, spitted and roasted its flesh, rested our horses awhile and rode on. Very weary, we reached Khalīla-village before the dawn and dismounted. From there it was gone on to Dīzak.

In Dīzak just then was Ḥāfiẓ Muḥ. Dūldāī’s son, T̤āhir. There, in Dīzak, were fat meats, loaves of fine flour, plenty of sweet melons and abundance of excellent grapes. From what privation we came to such plenty! From what stress to what repose!

From fear and hunger rest we won (amānī tāptūq);
A fresh world’s new-born life we won (jahānī tāptūq).
From out our minds, death’s dread was chased (rafa‘ būldī);
From our men the hunger-pang kept back (dafa‘ būldī).⁵⁶⁹

Never in all our lives had we felt such relief! never in the whole course of them have we appreciated security and plenty so highly. Joy is best and more delightful when it follows sorrow, ease after toil. I have been transported four or five times from toil to rest and from hardship to ease.⁵⁷⁰ This was the first. We were set free from the affliction of such a foe and from the pangs of hunger and had reached the repose of security and the relief of abundance.

(c. Bābur in Dikh-kat.)

After three or four days of rest in Dīzak, we set out for Aūrā-tīpā. Pashāghar is a little⁵⁷¹ off the road but, as we had occupied it for some time (904 AH.), we made an excursion to it in passing by. In Pashāghar we chanced on one of Khānīm’s old servants, a teacher⁵⁷² who had been left behind in Samarkand from want of a mount. We saw one another and on questioning her, I found she had come there on foot.

Khūb-nigār Khānīm, my mother Khānīm’s younger sister⁵⁷³ already must have bidden this transitory world farewell; for they let Khānīm and me know of it in Aūrā-tīpā. My father’s mother also must have died in Andijān; this too they let us know in Aūrā-tīpā.⁵⁷⁴ Since the death of my grandfather, Yūnas Khān (892 AH.), Khānīm had not seen her (step-)mother or her younger brother and sisters, that is to say, Shāh Begīm, Sl. Maḥmūd Khān, Sult̤ān-nīgār Khānīm and Daulat-sult̤ān Khānīm. The separation had lasted 13 or 14 years. To see these relations she now started for Tāshkīnt.

After consulting with Muḥ. Ḥusain Mīrzā, it was settled for us to winter in a place called Dikh-kat⁵⁷⁵ one of the Aūrā-tīpā villages. There I deposited my impedimenta (aūrūq); then set out myself in order to visit Shāh Begīm and my Khān dādā and various relatives. I spent a few days in Tāshkīnt and waited on Shāh Begīm and my Khān dādā. My mother’s elder full-sister, Mihr-nigār Khānīm⁵⁷⁶ had come from Samarkand and was in Tāshkīnt. There my mother Khānīm fell very ill; it was a very bad illness; she passed through mighty risks.

His Highness Khwājaka Khwāja, having managed to get out of Samarkand, had settled down in Far-kat; there I visited him. I had hoped my Khān dādā would shew me affection and kindness and would give me a country or a district (pargana). He did promise me Aūrā-tīpā but Muḥ. Ḥusain Mīrzā. did not make it over, whether acting on his own account or whether upon a hint from above, is not known. After spending a few days with him (in Aūrā-tīpā), I went on to Dikh-kat.

Dikh-kat is in the Aūrā-tīpā hill-tracts, below the range on the other side of which is the Macha⁵⁷⁷ country. Its people, though Sārt, settled in a village, are, like Turks, herdsmen and shepherds. Their sheep are reckoned at 40,000. We dismounted at the houses of the peasants in the village; I stayed in a head-man’s house. He was old, 70 or 80, but his mother was still alive. She was a woman on whom much life had been bestowed for she was 111 years old. Some relation of hers may have gone, (as was said), with Tīmūr Beg’s army to Hindūstān;⁵⁷⁸ she had this in her mind and used to tell the tale. In Dikh-kat alone were 96 of her descendants, hers and her grandchildren, great-grandchildren and grandchildren’s grandchildren. Counting in the dead, 200 of her descendants were reckoned up. Her grandchild’s grandson was a strong young man of 25 or 26, with full black beard. While in Dikh-kat, I constantly made excursions amongst the mountains round about. Generally I went bare-foot and, from doing this so much, my feet became so that rock and stone made no difference to them.⁵⁷⁹ Once in one of these wanderings, a cow was seen, between the Afternoon and Evening prayers, going down by a narrow, ill-defined road. Said I, ‘I wonder which way that road will be going; keep your eye on that cow; don’t lose the cow till you know where the road comes out.’ Khwāja Asadu’l-lāh made his joke, ‘If the cow loses her way,’ he said, ‘what becomes of us?’

In the winter several of our soldiers asked for leave to Andijān because they could make no raids with us.⁵⁸⁰ Qāsim Beg said, with much insistance, ‘As these men are going, send something special of your own wear by them to Jahāngīr Mīrzā.’ I sent my ermine cap. Again he urged, ‘What harm would there be if you sent something for Taṃbal also?’ Though I was very unwilling, yet as he urged it, I sent Taṃbal a large broad-sword which Nuyān Kūkūldāsh had had made for himself in Samarkand. This very sword it was which, as will be told with the events of next year, came down on my own head!⁵⁸¹

A few days later, my grandmother, Aīsān-daulat Begīm, who, when I left Samarkand, had stayed behind, arrived in Dikh-kat with our families and baggage (aūrūq) and a few lean and hungry followers.

(d. Shaibāq Khān raids in The Khān’s country.)

That winter Shaibāq Khān crossed the Khujand river on the ice and plundered near Shāhrukhiya and Bīsh-kīnt. On hearing news of this, we gallopped off, not regarding the smallness of our numbers, and made for the villages below Khujand, opposite Hasht-yak (One-eighth). The cold was mightily bitter,⁵⁸² a wind not less than the Hā-darwesh⁵⁸³ raging violently the whole time. So cold it was that during the two or three days we were in those parts, several men died of it. When, needing to make ablution, I went into an irrigation-channel, frozen along both banks but because of its swift current, not ice-bound in the middle, and bathed, dipping under 16 times, the cold of the water went quite through me. Next day we crossed the river on the ice from opposite Khaṣlār and went on through the dark to Bīsh-kīnt.⁵⁸⁴ Shaibāq Khān, however, must have gone straight back after plundering the neighbourhood of Shāhrukhiya.

(e. Death of Nuyān Kūkūldāsh.)

Bīsh-kīnt, at that time, was held by Mullā Ḥaidar’s son, ‘Abdu’l-minān. A younger son, named Mūmin, a worthless and dissipated person, had come to my presence in Samarkand and had received all kindness from me. This sodomite, Mūmin, for what sort of quarrel between them is not known, cherished rancour against Nuyān Kūkūldāsh. At the time when we, having heard of the retirement of the Aūzbegs, sent a man to

The Khān and marched from Bīsh-kīnt to spend two or three days amongst the villages in the Blacksmith’s-dale,⁵⁸⁵ Mullā Ḥaidar’s son, Mūmin invited Nuyān Kūkūldāsh and Aḥmad-i-qāsim and some others in order to return them hospitality received in Samarkand. When I left Bīsh-kīnt, therefore they stayed behind. Mūmin’s entertainment to this party was given on the edge of a ravine (jar). Next day news was brought to us in Sām-sīrak, a village in the Blacksmith’s-dale, that Nuyān was dead through falling when drunk into the ravine. We sent his own mother’s brother, Ḥaq-naz̤ar and others, who searched out where he had fallen. They committed Nuyān to the earth in Bīsh-kīnt, and came back to me. They had found the body at the bottom of the ravine an arrow’s flight from the place of the entertainment. Some suspected that Mūmin, nursing his trumpery rancour, had taken Nuyān’s life. None knew the truth. His death made me strangely sad; for few men have I felt such grief; I wept unceasingly for a week or ten days. The chronogram of his death was found in Nuyān is dead.⁵⁸⁶

With the heats came the news that Shaibāq Khān was coming up into Aūrā-tīpā. Hereupon, as the land is level about Dikh-kat, we crossed the Āb-burdan pass into the Macha hill-country.⁵⁸⁷ Āb-burdan is the last village of Macha; just below it a spring sends its water down (to the Zar-afshān); above the stream is included in Macha, below it depends on Palghar. There is a tomb at the spring-head. I had a rock at the side of the spring-head shaped (qātīrīb) and these three couplets inscribed on it; —

I have heard that Jamshīd, the magnificent,
Inscribed on a rock at a fountain-head⁵⁸⁸
‘Many men like us have taken breath at this fountain,
And have passed away in the twinkling of an eye;
We took the world by courage and might,
But we took it not with us to the tomb.’

There is a custom in that hill-country of cutting verses and things⁵⁸⁹ on the rocks.

While we were in Macha, Mullā Hijrī,⁵⁹⁰ the poet, came from Ḥiṣār and waited on me. At that time I composed the following opening lines; —

Let your portrait flatter you never so much, than it you are more (āndīn artūqsīn);
Men call you their Life (Jān), than Life, without doubt, you are more (jāndīn artūqsīn).⁵⁹¹

After plundering round about in Aūrā-tīpā, Shaibāq Khān retired.⁵⁹² While he was up there, we, disregarding the fewness of our men and their lack of arms, left our impedimenta (aūrūq) in Macha, crossed the Āb-burdan pass and went to Dikh-kat so that, gathered together close at hand, we might miss no chance on one of the next nights. He, however, retired straightway; we went back to Macha.

It passed through my mind that to wander from mountain to mountain, homeless and houseless, without country or abiding-place, had nothing to recommend it. ‘Go you right off to The Khān,’ I said to myself. Qāsim Beg was not willing for this move, apparently being uneasy because, as has been told, he had put Mughūls to death at Qarā-būlāq, by way of example. However much we urged it, it was not to be! He drew off for Ḥiṣār with all his brothers and his whole following. We for our part, crossed the Āb-burdan pass and set forward for The Khān’s presence in Tāshkīnt.

(f. Bābur with The Khān.)

In the days when Taṃbal had drawn his army out and gone into the Blacksmith’s-dale,⁵⁹³ men at the top of his army, such as Muḥ. Dūghlāt, known as Ḥiṣārī, and his younger brother Ḥusain, and also Qaṃbar-‘alī, the Skinner, conspired to attempt his life. When he discovered this weighty matter, they, unable to remain with him, had gone to The Khān.

The Feast of Sacrifices (‘Īd-i-qurbān) fell for us in Shāh-rukhiya (Ẕū’l-ḥijja 10th. – June 16th. 1502).

I had written a quatrain in an ordinary measure but was in some doubt about it, because at that time I had not studied poetic idiom so much as I have now done. The Khān was good-natured and also he wrote verses, though ones somewhat deficient in the requisites for odes. I presented my quatrain and I laid my doubts before him but got no reply so clear as to remove them. His study of poetic idiom appeared to have been somewhat scant. Here is the verse; —

One hears no man recall another in trouble (miḥnat-ta kīshī);
None speak of a man as glad in his exile (ghurbat-ta kīshī);
My own heart has no joy in this exile;
Called glad is no exile, man though he be (albatta kīshī).

Later on I came to know that in Turkī verse, for the purpose of rhyme, ta and da are interchangeable and also ghain, qāf and kāf.⁵⁹⁴

(g. The acclaiming of the standards.)

When, a few days later, The Khān heard that Taṃbal had gone up into Aūrā-tīpā, he got his army to horse and rode out from Tāshkīnt. Between Bīsh-kīnt and Sām-sīrak he formed up into array of right and left and saw the count⁵⁹⁵ of his men. This done, the standards were acclaimed in Mughūl fashion.⁵⁹⁶ The Khān dismounted and nine standards were set up in front of him. A Mughūl tied a long strip of white cloth to the thigh-bone (aūrta aīlīk) of a cow and took the other end in his hand. Three other long strips of white cloth were tied to the staves of three of the (nine) standards, just below the yak-tails, and their other ends were brought for The Khān to stand on one and for me and Sl. Muḥ. Khānika to stand each on one of the two others. The Mughūl who had hold of the strip of cloth fastened to the cow’s leg, then said something in Mughūl while he looked at the standards and made signs towards them. The Khān and those present sprinkled qumīz⁵⁹⁷ in the direction of the standards; hautbois and drums were sounded towards them;⁵⁹⁸ the army flung the war-cry out three times towards them, mounted, cried it again and rode at the gallop round them.

Precisely as Chīngīz Khān laid down his rules, so the Mughūls still observe them. Each man has his place, just where his ancestors had it; right, right, – left, left, – centre, centre. The most reliable men go to the extreme points of the right and left. The Chīrās and Begchīk clans always demand to go to the point in the right.⁵⁹⁹ At that time the Beg of the Chīrās tūmān was a very bold brave, Qāshka (Mole-marked) Maḥmud and the beg of the renowned Begchīk tūmān was Ayūb Begchīk. These two, disputing which should go out to the point, drew swords on one another. At last it seems to have been settled that one should take the highest place in the hunting-circle, the other, in the battle-array.

Next day after making the circle, it was hunted near Sāmsīrak; thence move was made to the Tūrāk Four-gardens. On that day and in that camp, I finished the first ode I ever finished. Its opening couplet is as follows; —

Except my soul, no friend worth trust found I (wafādār tāpmādīm);
Except my heart, no confidant found I (asrār tāpmādīm).

There were six couplets; every ode I finished later was written just on this plan.

The Khān moved, march by march, from Sām-sīrak to the bank of the Khujand-river. One day we crossed the water by way of an excursion, cooked food and made merry with the braves and pages. That day some-one stole the gold clasp of my girdle. Next day Bayān-qulī’s Khān-qulī and Sl. Muḥ. Wais fled to Taṃbal. Every-one suspected them of that bad deed. Though this was not ascertained, Aḥmad-i-qāsim Kohbur asked leave and went away to Aūrā-tīpā. From that leave he did not return; he too went to Taṃbal.

908 AH. – JULY 7th. 1502 to JUNE 26th. 1503 AD.⁶⁰⁰

(a. Bābur’s poverty in Tāshkīnt.)

This move of The Khān’s was rather unprofitable; to take no fort, to beat no foe, he went out and went back.

During my stay in Tāshkīnt, I endured much poverty and humiliation. No country or hope of one! Most of my retainers dispersed, those left, unable to move about with me because of their destitution! If I went to my Khān dādā’s Gate,⁶⁰¹ I went sometimes with one man, sometimes with two. It was well he was no stranger but one of my own blood. After showing myself⁶⁰² in his presence, I used to go to Shāh Begīm’s, entering her house, bareheaded and barefoot, just as if it were my own.

This uncertainty and want of house and home drove me at last to despair. Said I, ‘It would be better to take my head⁶⁰³ and go off than live in such misery; better to go as far as my feet can carry me than be seen of men in such poverty and humiliation.’ Having settled on China to go to, I resolved to take my head and get away. From my childhood up I had wished to visit China but had not been able to manage it because of ruling and attachments. Now sovereignty itself was gone! and my mother, for her part, was re-united to her (step) – mother and her younger brother. The hindrances to my journey had been removed; my anxiety for my mother was dispelled. I represented (to Shāh Begīm and The Khān) through Khwāja Abū’l-makāram that now such a foe as Shaibāq Khān had made his appearance, Mughūl and Turk⁶⁰⁴ alike must guard against him; that thought about him must be taken while he had not well-mastered the (Aūzbeg) horde or grown very strong, for as they have said; —⁶⁰⁵

To-day, while thou canst, quench the fire,
Once ablaze it will burn up the world;
Let thy foe not fix string to his bow,
While an arrow of thine can pierce him;

that it was 20 or 25 years⁶⁰⁶ since they had seen the Younger Khān (Aḥmad Alacha) and that I had never seen him; should I be able, if I went to him, not only to see him myself, but to bring about the meeting between him and them?

Under this pretext I proposed to get out of those surroundings;⁶⁰⁷ once in Mughūlistān and Turfān, my reins would be in my own hands, without check or anxiety. I put no-one in possession of my scheme. Why not? Because it was impossible for me to mention such a scheme to my mother, and also because it was with other expectations that the few of all ranks who had been my companions in exile and privation, had cut themselves off with me and with me suffered change of fortune. To speak to them also of such a scheme would be no pleasure.

The Khwāja, having laid my plan before Shāh Begīm and The Khān, understood them to consent to it but, later, it occurred to them that I might be asking leave a second time,⁶⁰⁸ because of not receiving kindness. That touching their reputation, they delayed a little to give the leave.

(b. The Younger Khān comes to Tāshkīnt.)

At this crisis a man came from the Younger Khān to say that he was actually on his way. This brought my scheme to naught. When a second man announced his near approach, we all went out to give him honourable meeting, Shāh Begīm and his younger sisters, Sult̤ān-nigār Khānīm and Daulat-sult̤ān Khānīm, and I and Sl. Muḥ. Khānika and Khān Mīrzā (Wais).

Between Tāshkīnt and Sairām is a village called Yagha (var. Yaghma), with some smaller ones, where are the tombs of Father Abraham and Father Isaac. So far we went out. Knowing nothing exact about his coming,⁶⁰⁹ I rode out for an excursion, with an easy mind. All at once, he descended on me, face to face. I went forward; when I stopped, he stopped. He was a good deal perturbed; perhaps he was thinking of dismounting in some fixed spot and there seated, of receiving me ceremoniously. There was no time for this; when we were near each other, I dismounted. He had not time even to dismount;⁶¹⁰ I bent the knee, went forward and saw him. Hurriedly and with agitation, he told Sl. Sa‘īd Khān and Bābā Khān Sl. to dismount, bend the knee with (bīla) me and make my acquaintance.⁶¹¹ Just these two of his sons had come with him; they may have been 13 or 14 years old. When I had seen them, we all mounted and went to Shāh Begīm’s presence. After he had seen her and his sisters, and had renewed acquaintance, they all sat down and for half the night told one another particulars of their past and gone affairs.

Next day, my Younger Khān dādā bestowed on me arms of his own and one of his own special horses saddled, and a Mughūl head-to-foot dress, – a Mughūl cap,⁶¹² a long coat of Chinese satin, with broidering of stitchery,⁶¹³ and Chinese armour; in the old fashion, they had hung, on the left side, a haversack (chantāī) and an outer bag,⁶¹⁴ and three or four things such as women usually hang on their collars, perfume-holders and various receptacles;⁶¹⁵ in the same way, three or four things hung on the right side also.

From there we went to Tāshkīnt. My Elder Khān dādā also had come out for the meeting, some 3 or 4 yīghāch (12 to 15 m.) along the road. He had had an awning set up in a chosen spot and was seated there. The Younger Khān went up directly in front of him; on getting near, fetched a circle, from right to left, round him; then dismounted before him. After advancing to the place of interview (kūrūshūr yīr), he nine times bent the knee; that done, went close and saw (his brother). The Elder Khān, in his turn, had risen when the Younger Khān drew near. They looked long at one another (kūrūshtīlār) and long stood in close embrace (qūchūshūb). The Younger Khān again bent the knee nine times when retiring, many times also on offering his gift; after that, he went and sat down.

All his men had adorned themselves in Mughūl fashion. There they were in Mughūl caps (būrk); long coats of Chinese satin, broidered with stitchery, Mughūl quivers and saddles of green shagreen-leather, and Mughūl horses adorned in a unique fashion. He had brought rather few men, over 1000 and under 2000 may-be. He was a man of singular manners, a mighty master of the sword, and brave. Amongst arms he preferred to trust to the sword. He used to say that of arms there are, the shash-par⁶¹⁶ (six-flanged mace), the piyāzī (rugged mace), the kīstin,⁶¹⁷ the tabar-zīn (saddle-hatchet) and the bāltū (battle-axe), all, if they strike, work only with what of them first touches, but the sword, if it touch, works from point to hilt. He never parted with his keen-edged sword; it was either at his waist or to his hand. He was a little rustic and rough-of-speech, through having grown up in an out-of-the-way place.

When, adorned in the way described, I went with him to The Khān, Khwāja Abū’l-makāram asked, ‘Who is this honoured sult̤ān?’ and till I spoke, did not recognize me.

(c. The Khāns march into Farghāna against Taṃbal.)

Soon after returning to Tāshkīnt, The Khān led out an army for Andikān (Andijān) direct against Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal.⁶¹⁸ He took the road over the Kīndīrlīk-pass and from Blacksmiths’-dale (Āhangarān-julgasī) sent the Younger Khān and me on in advance. After the pass had been crossed, we all met again near Zarqān (var. Zabarqān) of Karnān.

One day, near Karnān, they numbered their men⁶¹⁹ and reckoned them up to be 30,000. From ahead news began to come that Taṃbal also was collecting a force and going to Akhsī. After having consulted together, The Khāns decided to join some of their men to me, in order that I might cross the Khujand-water, and, marching by way of Aūsh and Aūzkīnt, turn Taṃbal’s rear. Having so settled, they joined to me Ayūb Begchīk with his tūmān, Jān-ḥasan Bārīn (var. Nārīn) with his Bārīns, Muḥ. Ḥiṣārī Dūghlāt, Sl. Ḥusain Dūghlāt and Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā Dūghlāt, not in command of the Dūghlāt tūmān, – and Qaṃbar-‘alī Beg (the Skinner). The commandant (darogha) of their force was Sārīgh-bāsh (Yellow-head) Mīrza Itārchī.⁶²⁰

Leaving The Khāns in Karnān, we crossed the river on rafts near Sakan, traversed the Khūqān sub-district (aūrchīn), crushed Qabā and by way of the Alāī sub-districts⁶²¹ descended suddenly on Aūsh. We reached it at dawn, unexpected; those in it could but surrender. Naturally the country-folk were wishing much for us, but they had not been able to find their means, both through dread of Taṃbal and through our remoteness. After we entered Aūsh, the hordes and the highland and lowland tribes of southern and eastern Andijān came in to us. The Aūzkīnt people also, willing to serve us, sent me a man and came in.

(Author’s note on Aūzkīnt.) Aūzkīnt formerly must have been a capital of Farghāna;⁶²² it has an excellent fort and is situated on the boundary (of Farghāna).

The Marghīnānīs also came in after two or three days, having beaten and chased their commandant (darogha). Except Andijān, every fort south of the Khujand-water had now come in to us. Spite of the return in those days of so many forts, and spite of risings and revolt against him, Taṃbal did not yet come to his senses but sat down with an army of horse and foot, fortified with ditch and branch, to face The Khāns, between Karnān and Akhsī. Several times over there was a little fighting and pell-mell but without decided success to either side.

In the Andijān country (wilāyat), most of the tribes and hordes and the forts and all the districts had come in to me; naturally the Andijānīs also were wishing for me. They however could not find their means.

(d. Bābur’s attempt to enter Andijān frustrated by a mistake.)

It occurred to me that if we went one night close to the town and sent a man in to discuss with the Khwāja⁶²³ and notables, they might perhaps let us in somewhere. With this idea we rode out from Aūsh. By midnight we were opposite Forty-daughters (Chihil-dukhterān) 2 miles (one kuroh) from Andijān. From that place we sent Qaṃbar-‘alī Beg forward, with some other begs, who were to discuss matters with the Khwāja after by some means or other getting a man into the fort. While waiting for their return, we sat on our horses, some of us patiently humped up, some wrapt away in dream, when suddenly, at about the third watch, there rose a war-cry⁶²⁴ and a sound of drums. Sleepy and startled, ignorant whether the foe was many or few, my men, without looking to one another, took each his own road and turned for flight. There was no time for me to get at them; I went straight for the enemy. Only Mīr Shāh Qūchīn and Bābā Sher-zād (Tiger-whelp) and Nāṣir’s Dost sprang forward; we four excepted, every man set his face for flight. I had gone a little way forward, when the enemy rode rapidly up, flung out his war-cry and poured arrows on us. One man, on a horse with a starred forehead,⁶²⁵ came close to me; I shot at it; it rolled over and died. They made a little as if to retire. The three with me said, ‘In this darkness it is not certain whether they are many or few; all our men have gone off; what harm could we four do them? Fighting must be when we have overtaken our run-aways and rallied them.’ Off we hurried, got up with our men and beat and horse-whipped some of them, but, do what we would, they would not make a stand. Back the four of us went to shoot arrows at the foe. They drew a little back but when, after a discharge or two, they saw we were not more than three or four, they busied themselves in chasing and unhorsing my men. I went three or four times to try to rally my men but all in vain! They were not to be brought to order. Back I went with my three and kept the foe in check with our arrows. They pursued us two or three kuroh (4-6 m.), as far as the rising ground opposite Kharābūk and Pashāmūn. There we met Muḥ. ‘Alī Mubashir. Said I, ‘They are only few; let us stop and put our horses at them.’ So we did. When we got up to them, they stood still.⁶²⁶

Our scattered braves gathered in from this side and that, but several very serviceable men, scattering in this attack, went right away to Aūsh.

The explanation of the affair seemed to be that some of Ayūb Begchīk’s Mughūls had slipped away from Aūsh to raid near Andijān and, hearing the noise of our troop, came somewhat stealthily towards us; then there seems to have been confusion about the pass-word. The pass-words settled on for use during this movement of ours were Tāshkīnt and Sairām. If

(Author’s note on pass-words.) Pass-words are of two kinds; – in each tribe there is one for use in the tribe, such as Darwāna or Tūqqāī or Lūlū;⁶²⁷ and there is one for the use of the whole army. For a battle, two words are settled on as pass-words so that of two men meeting in the fight, one may give the one, the other give back the second, in order to distinguish friends from foes, own men from strangers.

Tāshkīnt were said, Sairām would be answered; if Sairām, Tāshkīnt. In this muddled affair, Khwāja Muḥ. ‘Ali seems to have been somewhat in advance of our party and to have got bewildered, – he was a Sārt person,⁶²⁸– when the Mughūls came up saying, ‘Tāshkīnt, Tāshkīnt,’ for he gave them ‘Tāshkīnt, Tāshkīnt,’ as the counter-sign. Through this they took him for an enemy, raised their war-cry, beat their saddle-drums and poured arrows on us. It was through this we gave way, and through this false alarm were scattered! We went back to Aūsh.

(e. Bābur again attempts Andijān.)

Through the return to me of the forts and the highland and lowland clans, Taṃbal and his adherents lost heart and footing. His army and people in the next five or six days began to desert him and to flee to retired places and the open country.⁶²⁹ Of his household some came and said, ‘His affairs are nearly ruined; he will break up in three or four days, utterly ruined.’ On hearing this, we rode for Andijān.

Sl. Muḥ. Galpuk⁶³⁰ was in Andijān, – the younger of Taṃbal’s cadet brothers. We took the Mulberry-road and at the Mid-day Prayer came to the Khākān (canal), south of the town. A foraging-party was arranged; I followed it along Khākān to the skirt of ‘Aīsh-hill. When our scouts brought word that Sl. Muḥ. Galpuk had come out, with what men he had, beyond the suburbs and gardens to the skirt of ‘Aīsh, I hurried to meet him, although our foragers were still scattered. He may have had over 500 men; we had more but many had scattered to forage. When we were face to face, his men and ours may have been in equal number. Without caring about order or array, down we rode on them, loose rein, at the gallop. When we got near, they could not stand; there was not so much fighting as the crossing of a few swords. My men followed them almost to the Khākān Gate, unhorsing one after another.

It was at the Evening Prayer that, our foe outmastered, we reached Khwāja Kitta, on the outskirts of the suburbs. My idea was to go quickly right up to the Gate but Dost Beg’s father, Nāṣir Beg and Qaṃbar-‘alī Beg, old and experienced begs both, represented to me, ‘It is almost night; it would be ill-judged to go in a body into the fort in the dark; let us withdraw a little and dismount. What can they do to-morrow but surrender the place?’ Yielding at once to the opinion of these experienced persons, we forthwith retired to the outskirts of the suburbs. If we had gone to the Gate, undoubtedly, Andijān would have come into our hands.

(f. Bābur surprised by Taṃbal.)

After crossing the Khākān-canal, we dismounted, near the Bed-time prayer, at the side of the village of Rabāt̤-i-zauraq (var. rūzaq). Although we knew that Taṃbal had broken camp and was on his way to Andijān, yet, with the negligence of inexperience, we dismounted on level ground close to the village, instead of where the defensive canal would have protected us.⁶³¹ There we lay down carelessly, without scouts or rear-ward.

At the top (bāsh) of the morning, just when men are in sweet sleep, Qaṃbar-‘alī Beg hurried past, shouting, ‘Up with you! the enemy is here!’ So much he said and went off without a moment’s stay. It was my habit to lie down, even in times of peace, in my tunic; up I got instanter, put on sword and quiver and mounted. My standard-bearer had no time to adjust my standard,⁶³² he just mounted with it in his hand. There were ten or fifteen men with me when we started toward the enemy; after riding an arrow’s flight, when we came up with his scouts, there may have been ten. Going rapidly forward, we overtook him, poured in arrows on him, over-mastered his foremost men and hurried them off. We followed them for another arrow’s flight and came up with his centre where Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal himself was, with as many as 100 men. He and another were standing in front of his array, as if keeping a Gate,⁶³³ and were shouting, ‘Strike, strike!’ but his men, mostly, were sidling, as if asking themselves, ‘Shall we run away? Shall we not?’ By this time three were left with me; one was Nāṣir’s Dost, another, Mīrzā Qulī Kūkūldāsh, the third, Khudāī-bīrdī Turkmān’s Karīm-dād.⁶³⁴ I shot off the arrow on my thumb,⁶³⁵ aiming at Taṃbal’s helm. When I put my hand into my quiver, there came out a quite new gosha-gīr⁶³⁶ given me by my Younger Khān dādā. It would have been vexing to throw it away but before I got it back into the quiver, there had been time to shoot, maybe, two or three arrows. When once more I had an arrow on the string, I went forward, my three men even holding back. One of those two in advance, Taṃbal seemingly,⁶³⁷ moved forward also. The high-road was between us; I from my side, he, from his, got upon it and came face to face, in such a way that his right hand was towards me, mine towards him. His horse’s mail excepted, he was fully accoutred; but for sword and quiver, I was unprotected. I shot off the arrow in my hand, adjusting for the attachment of his shield. With matters in this position, they shot my right leg through. I had on the cap of my helm;⁶³⁸ Taṃbal chopped so violently at my head that it lost all feeling under the blow. A large wound was made on my head, though not a thread of the cap was cut.⁶³⁹ I had not bared⁶⁴⁰ my sword; it was in the scabbard and I had no chance to draw it. Single-handed, I was alone amongst many foes. It was not a time to stand still; I turned rein. Down came a sword again; this time on my arrows. When I had gone 7 or 8 paces, those same three men rejoined me.⁶⁴¹ After using his sword on me, Taṃbal seems to have used it on Nāṣir’s Dost. As far as an arrrow flies to the butt, the enemy followed us.

The Khākān-canal is a great main-channel, flowing in a deep cutting, not everywhere to be crossed. God brought it right! we came exactly opposite a low place where there was a passage over. Directly we had crossed, the horse Nāṣir’s Dost was on, being somewhat weakly, fell down. We stopped and remounted him, then drew off for Aūsh, over the rising-ground between Farāghīna and Khirābūk. Out on the rise, Mazīd T̤aghāī came up and joined us. An arrow had pierced his right leg also and though it had not gone through and come out again, he got to Aūsh with difficulty. The enemy unhorsed (tūshūrdīlār) good men of mine; Nāṣir Beg, Muḥ. ‘Alī Mubashir, Khwāja Muḥ. ‘Alī, Khusrau Kūkūldāsh, Na‘man the page, all fell (to them, tūshtīlār), and also many unmailed braves.⁶⁴²

(g. The Khāns move from Kāsān to Andijān.)

The Khāns, closely following on Taṃbal, dismounted near Andijān, – the Elder at the side of the Reserve (qūrūq) in the garden, known as Birds’-mill (Qūsh-tīgīrmān), belonging to my grandmother, Aīsān-daulat Begīm, – the Younger, near Bābā Tawakkul’s Alms-house. Two days later I went from Aūsh and saw the Elder Khān in Birds’-mill. At that interview, he simply gave over to the Younger Khān the places which had come in to me. He made some such excuse as that for our advantage, he had brought the Younger Khān, how far! because such a foe as Shaibāq Khān had taken Samarkand and was waxing greater; that the Younger Khān had there no lands whatever, his own being far away; and that the country under Andijān, on the south of the Khujand-water, must be given him to encamp in. He promised me the country under Akhsī, on the north of the Khujand-water. He said that after taking a firm grip of that country (Farghāna), they would move, take Samarkand, give it to me and then the whole of the Farghāna country was to be the Younger Khan’s. These words seem to have been meant to deceive me, since there is no knowing what they would have done when they had attained their object. It had to be however! willy-nilly, I agreed.

When, leaving him, I was on my way to the Younger Khān’s presence, Qaṃbar-‘alī, known as the Skinner, joined me in a friendly way and said, ‘Do you see? They have taken the whole of the country just become yours. There is no opening for you through them. You have in your hands Aūsh, Marghīnān, Aūzkīnt and the cultivated land and the tribes and the hordes; go you to Aūsh; make that fort fast; send a man to Taṃbal, make peace with him, then strike at the Mughūl and drive him out. After that, divide the districts into an elder and a younger brother’s shares.’ ‘Would that be right?’ said I. ‘The Khāns are my blood relations; better serve them than rule for Taṃbal.’ He saw that his words had made no impression, so turned back, sorry he had spoken. I went on to see my Younger Khān Dādā. At our first interview, I had come upon him without announcement and he had no time to dismount, so it was all rather unceremonious. This time I got even nearer perhaps, and he ran out as far as the end of the tent-ropes. I was walking with some difficulty because of the wound in my leg. We met and renewed acquaintance; then he said, ‘You are talked about as a hero, my young brother!’ took my arm and led me into his tent. The tents pitched were rather small and through his having grown up in an out-of-the-way place, he let the one he sat in be neglected; it was like a raider’s, melons, grapes, saddlery, every sort of thing, in his sitting-tent. I went from his presence straight back to my own camp and there he sent his Mughūl surgeon to examine my wound. Mughūls call a surgeon also a bakhshī; this one was called Ātākā Bakhshī.⁶⁴³

He was a very skilful surgeon; if a man’s brains had come out, he would cure it, and any sort of wound in an artery he easily healed. For some wounds his remedy was in form of a plaister, for some medicines had to be taken. He ordered a bandage tied on⁶⁴⁴ the wound in my leg and put no seton in; once he made me eat something like a fibrous root (yīldīz). He told me himself, ‘A certain man had his leg broken in the slender part and the bone was shattered for the breadth of the hand. I cut the flesh open and took the bits of bone out. Where they had been, I put a remedy in powder-form. That remedy simply became bone where there had been bone before.’ He told many strange and marvellous things such as surgeons in cultivated lands cannot match.

Three or four days later, Qaṃbar-‘alī, afraid on account of what he had said to me, fled (to Taṃbal) in Andijān. A few days later, The Khāns joined to me Ayūb Begchīk with his tūmān, and Jān-ḥasan Bārīn with the Bārīn tūmān and, as their army-beg, Sārīgh-bāsh Mīrzā, – 1000 to 2000 men in all, and sent us towards Akhsī.

(h. Bābur’s expedition to Akhsī.)

Shaikh Bāyazīd, a younger brother of Taṃbal, was in Akhsī; Shahbāz Qārlūq was in Kāsān. At the time, Shahbāz was lying before Nū-kīnt fort; crossing the Khujand-water opposite Bīkhrātā, we hurried to fall upon him there. When, a little before dawn, we were nearing the place, the begs represented to me that as the man would have had news of us, it was advisable not to go on in broken array. We moved on therefore with less speed. Shahbāz may have been really unaware of us until we were quite close; then getting to know of it, he fled into the fort. It often happens so! Once having said, ‘The enemy is on guard!’ it is easily fancied true and the chance of action is lost. In short, the experience of such things is that no effort or exertion must be omitted, once the chance for action comes. After-repentance is useless. There was a little fighting round the fort at dawn but we delivered no serious attack.

For the convenience of foraging, we moved from Nū-kīnt towards the hills in the direction of Bīshkhārān. Seizing his opportunity, Shahbāz Qārlūq abandoned Nū-kīnt and returned to Kāsān. We went back and occupied Nū-kīnt. During those days, the army several times went out and over-ran all sides and quarters. Once they over-ran the villages of Akhsī, once those of Kāsān. Shahbāz and Long Ḥasan’s adopted son, Mīrīm came out of Kāsān to fight; they fought, were beaten, and there Mīrīm died.

(i. The affairs of Pāp.)

Pāp is a strong fort belonging to Akhsī. The Pāpīs made it fast and sent a man to me. We accordingly sent Sayyid Qāsim with a few braves to occupy it. They crossed the river (daryā) opposite the upper villages of Akhsī and went into Pāp.⁶⁴⁵ A few days later, Sayyid Qāsim did an astonishing thing. There were at the time with Shaikh Bāyazīd in Akhsī, Ibrāhīm Chāpūk (Slash-face) T̤aghāī,⁶⁴⁶ Aḥmad-of-qāsim Kohbur, and Qāsim Khitika (?) Arghūn. To these Shaikh Bāyazīd joins 200 serviceable braves and one night sends them to surprise Pāp. Sayyid Qāsim must have lain down carelessly to sleep, without setting a watch. They reach the fort, set ladders up, get up on the Gate, let the drawbridge down and, when 70 or 80 good men in mail are inside, goes the news to Sayyid Qāsim! Drowsy with sleep, he gets into his vest (kūnglāk), goes out, with five or six of his men, charges the enemy and drives them out with blow upon blow. He cut off a few heads and sent to me. Though such a careless lying down was bad leadership, yet, with so few, just by force of drubbing, to chase off such a mass of men in mail was very brave indeed.

Meantime The Khāns were busy with the siege of Andijān but the garrison would not let them get near it. The Andijān braves used to make sallies and blows would be exchanged.

(j. Bābur invited into Akhsī.)

Shaikh Bāyazīd now began to send persons to us from Akhsī to testify to well-wishing and pressingly invite us to Akhsī. His object was to separate me from The Khāns, by any artifice, because without me, they had no standing-ground. His invitation may have been given after agreeing with his elder brother, Taṃbal that if I were separated from The Khāns, it might be possible, in my presence, to come to some arrangement with them. We gave The Khāns a hint of the invitation. They said, ‘Go! and by whatever means, lay hands on Shaikh Bāyazīd.’ It was not my habit to cheat and play false; here above all places, when promises would have been made, how was I to break them? It occurred to me however, that if we could get into Akhsī, we might be able, by using all available means, to detach Shaikh Bāyazīd from Taṃbal, when he might take my side or something might turn up to favour my fortunes. We, in our turn, sent a man to him; compact was made, he invited us into Akhsī and when we went, came out to meet us, bringing my younger brother, Nāṣir Mīrzā with him. Then he took us into the town, gave us ground to camp in (yūrt) and to me one of my father’s houses in the outer fort⁶⁴⁷ where I dismounted.

(k. Taṃbal asks help of Shaibāq Khān.)

Taṃbal had sent his elder brother, Beg Tīlba, to Shaibāq Khān with proffer of service and invitation to enter Farghāna. At this very time Shaibāq Khān’s answer arrived; ‘I will come,’ he wrote. On hearing this, The Khāns were all upset; they could sit no longer before Andijān and rose from before it.

The Younger Khān himself had a reputation for justice and orthodoxy, but his Mughūls, stationed, contrary to the expectations of the towns-people, in Aūsh, Marghīnān and other places, – places that had come in to me, – began to behave ill and oppressively. When The Khāns had broken up from before Andijān, the Aūshīs and Marghīnānīs, rising in tumult, seized the Mughūls in their forts, plundered and beat them, drove them out and pursued them.

The Khāns did not cross the Khujand-water (for the Kīndīrlīk-pass) but left the country by way of Marghīnān and Kand-i-badām and crossed it at Khujand, Taṃbal pursuing them as far as Marghīnān. We had had much uncertainty; we had not had much confidence in their making any stand, yet for us to go away, without clear reason, and leave them, would not have looked well.

(l. Bābur attempts to defend Akhsī.)

Early one morning, when I was in the Hot-bath, Jahāngīr Mīrzā came into Akhsī, from Marghīnān, a fugitive from Taṃbal. We saw one another, Shaikh Bāyazīd also being present, agitated and afraid. The Mīrzā and Ibrāhīm Beg said, ‘Shaikh Bāyazīd must be made prisoner and we must get the citadel into our hands.’ In good sooth, the proposal was wise. Said I, ‘Promise has been made; how can we break it?’ Shaikh Bāyazīd went into the citadel. Men ought to have been posted on the bridge; not even there did we post any-one! These blunders were the fruit of inexperience. At the top of the morning came Taṃbal himself with 2 or 3000 men in mail, crossed the bridge and went into the citadel. To begin with I had had rather few men; when I first went into Akhsī some had been sent to other forts and some had been made commandants and summoners all round. Left with me in Akhsī may have been something over 100 men. We had got to horse with these and were posting braves at the top of one lane after another and making ready for the fight, when Shaikh Bāyazīd and Qaṃbar-‘alī (the Skinner), and Muḥammad-dost⁶⁴⁸ came gallopping from Taṃbal with talk of peace.

After posting those told off for the fight, each in his appointed place, I dismounted at my father’s tomb for a conference, in which I invited Jahāngīr Mīrzā to join. Muḥammad-dost went back to Taṃbal but Qaṃbar-‘alī and Shaikh Bāyazīd were present. We sat in the south porch of the tomb and were in consultation when the Mīrzā, who must have settled beforehand with Ibrāhīm Chāpūk to lay hands on those other two, said in my ear, ‘They must be made prisoner.’ Said I, ‘Don’t hurry! matters are past making prisoners. See here! with terms made, the affair might be coaxed into something. For why? Not only are they many and we few, but they with their strength are in the citadel, we with our weakness, in the outer fort.’ Shaikh Bāyazīd and Qaṃbar-‘alī both being present, Jahāngīr Mīrzā looked at Ibrāhīm Beg and made him a sign to refrain. Whether he misunderstood to the contrary or whether he pretended to misunderstand, is not known; suddenly he did the ill-deed of seizing Shaikh Bāyazīd. Braves closing in from all sides, flung those two to the ground. Through this the affair was taken past adjustment; we gave them into charge and got to horse for the coming fight.

One side of the town was put into Jahāngīr Mīrzā’s charge; as his men were few, I told off some of mine to reinforce him. I went first to his side and posted men for the fight, then to other parts of the town. There is a somewhat level, open space in the middle of Akhsī; I had posted a party of braves there and gone on when a large body of the enemy, mounted and on foot, bore down upon them, drove them from their post and forced them into a narrow lane. Just then I came up (the lane), gallopped my horse at them, and scattered them in flight. While I was thus driving them out from the lane into the flat, and had got my sword to work, they shot my horse in the leg; it stumbled and threw me there amongst them. I got up quickly and shot one arrow off. My squire, Kahil (lazy) had a weakly pony; he got off and led it to me. Mounting this, I started for another lane-head. Sl. Muḥ. Wais noticed the weakness of my mount, dismounted and led me his own. I mounted that horse. Just then, Qāsim Beg’s son, Qaṃbar-‘alī came, wounded, from Jahāngīr Mīrzā and said the Mīrzā had been attacked some time before, driven off in panic, and had gone right away. We were thunderstruck! At the same moment arrived Sayyid Qāsim, the commandant of Pāp! His was a most unseasonable visit, since at such a crisis it was well to have such a strong fort in our hands. Said I to Ibrāhīm Beg, ‘What’s to be done now?’ He was slightly wounded; whether because of this or because of stupefaction, he could give no useful answer. My idea was to get across the bridge, destroy it and make for Andijān. Bābā Sher-zād did very well here. ‘We will storm out at the gate and get away at once,’ he said. At his word, we set off for the Gate. Khwāja Mīr Mīrān also spoke boldly at that crisis. In one of the lanes, Sayyid Qāsim and Nāṣir’s Dost chopped away at Bāqī Khīz,⁶⁴⁹ I being in front with Ibrāhīm Beg and Mīrzā Qulī Kūkūldāsh.

As we came opposite the Gate, we saw Shaikh Bāyazīd, wearing his pull-over shirt⁶⁵⁰ above his vest, coming in with three or four horsemen. He must have been put into the charge of Jahāngīr’s men in the morning when, against my will, he was made prisoner, and they must have carried him off when they got away. They had thought it would be well to kill him; they set him free alive. He had been released just when I chanced upon him in the Gate. I drew and shot off the arrow on my thumb; it grazed his neck, a good shot! He came confusedly in at the Gate, turned to the right and fled down a lane. We followed him instantly. Mīrzā Qulī Kūkūldāsh got at one man with his rugged-mace and went on. Another man took aim at Ibrāhīm Beg, but when the Beg shouted ‘Hāī! Hāī!’ let him pass and shot me in the arm-pit, from as near as a man on guard at a Gate. Two plates of my Qālmāq mail were cut; he took to flight and I shot after him. Next I shot at a man running away along the ramparts, adjusting for his cap against the battlements; he left his cap nailed on the wall and went off, gathering his turban-sash together in his hand. Then again, – a man was in flight alongside me in the lane down which Shaikh Bāyazīd had gone. I pricked the back of his head with my sword; he bent over from his horse till he leaned against the wall of the lane, but he kept his seat and with some trouble, made good his flight. When we had driven all the enemy’s men from the Gate, we took possession of it but the affair was past discussion because they, in the citadel, were 2000 or 3000, we, in the outer fort, 100 or 200. Moreover they had chased off Jahāngīr Mīrzā, as long before as it takes milk to boil, and with him had gone half my men. This notwithstanding, we sent a man, while we were in the Gate, to say to him, ‘If you are near at hand, come, let us attack again.’ But the matter had gone past that! Ibrāhīm Beg, either because his horse was really weak or because of his wound, said, ‘My horse is done.’ On this, Sulaimān, one of Muḥ. ‘Alī’s Mubashir’s servants, did a plucky thing, for with matters as they were and none constraining him, while we were waiting in the Gate, he dismounted and gave his horse to Ibrāhīm Beg. Kīchīk (little) ‘Alī, now the Governor of Koel,⁶⁵¹ also shewed courage while we were in the Gate; he was a retainer of Sl. Muḥ. Wais and twice did well, here and in Aūsh. We delayed in the Gate till those sent to Jahāngīr Mīrzā came back and said he had gone off long before. It was too late to stay there; off we flung; it was ill-judged to have stayed as long as we did. Twenty or thirty men were with me. Just as we hustled out of the Gate, a number of armed men⁶⁵² came right down upon us, reaching the town-side of the drawbridge just as we had crossed. Banda-‘alī, the maternal grandfather of Qāsim Beg’s son, Ḥamza, called out to Ibrāhīm Beg, ‘You are always boasting of your zeal! Let’s take to our swords!’ ‘What hinders? Come along!’ said Ibrāhīm Beg, from beside me. The senseless fellows were for displaying their zeal at a time of such disaster! Ill-timed zeal! That was no time to make stand or delay! We went off quickly, the enemy following and unhorsing our men.

(m. Bābur a fugitive before Taṃbal’s men.)

When we were passing Meadow-dome (Guṃbaz-i-chaman), two miles out of Akhsī, Ibrāhīm Beg called out to me. Looking back, I saw a page of Shaikh Bāyazīd’s striking at him and turned rein, but Bayān-qulī’s Khān-qulī, said at my side, ‘This is a bad time for going back,’ seized my rein and pushed ahead. Many of our men had been unhorsed before we reached Sang, 4 miles (2 shar‘ī) out of Akhsī.⁶⁵³ Seeing no pursuers at Sang, we passed it by and turned straight up its water. In this position of our affairs there were eight men of us; – Nāṣir’s Dost, Qāsim Beg’s Qaṃbar-‘alī, Bayān-qulī’s Khān-qulī, Mīrzā Qulī Kūkūldāsh, Nāṣir’s Shāham, Sayyidī Qarā’s ‘Abdu’l-qadūs, Khwāja Ḥusainī and myself, the eighth. Turning up the stream, we found, in the broad valley, a good little road, far from the beaten track. We made straight up the valley, leaving the stream on the right, reached its waterless part and, near the Afternoon Prayer, got up out of it to level land. When we looked across the plain, we saw a blackness on it, far away. I made my party take cover and myself had gone to look out from higher ground, when a number of men came at a gallop up the hill behind us. Without waiting to know whether they were many or few, we mounted and rode off. There were 20 or 25; we, as has been said, were eight. If we had known their number at first, we should have made a good stand against them but we thought they would not be pursuing us, unless they had good support behind. A fleeing foe, even if he be many, cannot face a few pursuers, for as the saying is, ‘Hāī is enough for the beaten ranks.’⁶⁵⁴

Khān-qulī said, ‘This will never do! They will take us all. From amongst the horses there are, you take two good ones and go quickly on with Mīrzā Qulī Kūkūldāsh, each with a led horse. May-be you will get away.’ He did not speak ill; as there was no fighting to hand, there was a chance of safety in doing as he said, but it really would not have looked well to leave any man alone, without a horse, amongst his foes. In the end they all dropped off, one by one, of themselves. My horse was a little tired; Khān-qulī dismounted and gave me his; I jumped off at once and mounted his, he mine. Just then they unhorsed Sayyidī Qarā’s ‘Abdu’l-qadūs and Nāṣir’s Shāham who had fallen behind. Khān-qulī also was left. It was no time to profer help or defence; on it was gone, at the full speed of our mounts. The horses began to flag; Dost Beg’s failed and stopped. Mine began to tire; Qaṃbar-‘alī got off and gave me his; I mounted his, he mine. He was left. Khwāja Ḥusainī was a lame man; he turned aside to the higher ground. I was left with Mīrzā Qulī Kūkūldāsh. Our horses could not possibly gallop, they trotted. His began to flag. Said I, ‘What will become of me, if you fall behind? Come along! let’s live or die together.’ Several times I looked back at him; at last he said, ‘My horse is done! It can’t go on. Never mind me! You go on, perhaps you will get away.’ It was a miserable position for me; he remained behind, I was alone.

Two of the enemy were in sight, one Bābā of Sairām, the other Banda-‘alī. They gained on me; my horse was done; the mountains were still 2 miles (1 kuroh) off. A pile of rock was in my path. Thought I to myself, ‘My horse is worn out and the hills are still somewhat far away; which way should I go? In my quiver are at least 20 arrows; should I dismount and shoot them off from this pile of rock?’ Then again, I thought I might reach the hills and once there, stick a few arrows in my belt and scramble up. I had a good deal of confidence in my feet and went on, with this plan in mind. My horse could not possibly trot; the two men came within arrow’s reach. For my own sake sparing my arrows, I did not shoot; they, out of caution, came no nearer. By sunset I was near the hills. Suddenly they called out, ‘Where are you going in this fashion? Jahāngīr Mīrzā has been brought in a prisoner; Nāṣir Mīrzā also is in their hands.’ I made no reply and went on towards the hills. When a good distance further had been gone, they spoke again, this time more respectfully, dismounting to speak. I gave no ear to them but went on up a glen till, at the Bed-time prayer, I reached a rock as big as a house. Going behind it, I saw there were places to be jumped, where no horse could go. They dismounted again and began to speak like servants and courteously. Said they, ‘Where are you going in this fashion, without a road and in the dark? Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal will make you pādshāh.’ They swore this. Said I, ‘My mind is not easy as to that. I cannot go to him. If you think to do me timely service, years may pass before you have such another chance. Guide me to a road by which I can go to The Khān’s presence. If you will do this, I will shew you favour and kindness greater than your heart’s-desire. If you will not do it, go back the way you came; that also would be to serve me well.’ Said they, ‘Would to God we had never come! But since we are here, after following you in the way we have done, how can we go back from you? If you will not go with us, we are at your service, wherever you go.’ Said I, ‘Swear that you speak the truth.’ They, for their part, made solemn oath upon the Holy Book.

I at once confided in them and said, ‘People have shewn me a road through a broad valley, somewhere near this glen; take me to it.’ Spite of their oath, my trust in them was not so complete but that I gave them the lead and followed. After 2 to 4 miles (1-2 kuroh), we came to the bed of a torrent. ‘This will not be the road for the broad valley,’ I said. They drew back, saying, ‘That road is a long way ahead,’ but it really must have been the one we were on and they have been concealing the fact, in order to deceive me. About half through the night, we reached another stream. This time they said, ‘We have been negligent; it now seems to us that the road through the broad valley is behind.’ Said I, ‘What is to be done?’ Said they, ‘The Ghawā road is certainly in front; by it people cross for Far-kat.⁶⁵⁵ They guided me for that and we went on till in the third watch of the night we reached the Karnān gully which comes down from Ghawā. Here Bābā Sairāmī said, ‘Stay here a little while I look along the Ghawā road.’ He came back after a time and said, ‘Some men have gone along that road, led by one wearing a Mughūl cap; there is no going that way.’ I took alarm at these words. There I was, at dawn, in the middle of the cultivated land, far from the road I wanted to take. Said I, ‘Guide me to where I can hide today, and tonight when you will have laid hands on something for the horses, lead me to cross the Khujand-water and along its further bank.’ Said they, ‘Over there, on the upland, there might be hiding.’

Banda-‘alī was Commandant in Karnān. ‘There is no doing without food for ourselves or our horses;’ he said, ‘let me go into Karnān and bring what I can find.’ We stopped 2 miles (1 kuroh) out of Karnān; he went on. He was a long time away; near dawn there was no sign of him. The day had shot when he hurried up, bringing three loaves of bread but no corn for the horses. Each of us putting a loaf into the breast of his tunic, we went quickly up the rise, tethered our horses there in the open valley and went to higher ground, each to keep watch.

Near mid-day, Aḥmad the Falconer went along the Ghawā road for Akhsī. I thought of calling to him and of saying, with promise and fair word, ‘You take those horses,’ for they had had a day and a night’s strain and struggle, without corn, and were utterly done. But then again, we were a little uneasy as we did not entirely trust him. We decided that, as the men Bābā Sairāmī had seen on the road would be in Karnān that night, the two with me should fetch one of their horses for each of us, and that then we should go each his own way.

At mid-day, a something glittering was seen on a horse, as far away as eye can reach. We were not able to make out at all what it was. It must have been Muḥ. Bāqir Beg himself; he had been with us in Akhsī and when we got out and scattered, he must have come this way and have been moving then to a hiding-place.⁶⁵⁶

Banda-‘alī and Bābā Sairāmī said, ‘The horses have had no corn for two days and two nights; let us go down into the dale and put them there to graze.’ Accordingly we rode down and put them to the grass. At the Afternoon Prayer, a horseman passed along the rising-ground where we had been. We recognized him for Qādīr-bīrdī, the head-man of Ghawā. ‘Call him,’ I said. They called; he came. After questioning him, and speaking to him of favour and kindness, and giving him promise and fair word, I sent him to bring rope, and a grass-hook, and an axe, and material for crossing water,⁶⁵⁷ and corn for the horses, and food and, if it were possible, other horses. We made tryst with him for that same spot at the Bed-time Prayer.

Near the Evening Prayer, a horseman passed from the direction of Karnān for Ghawā. ‘Who are you?’ we asked. He made some reply. He must have been Muḥ. Bāqir Beg himself, on his way from where we had seen him earlier, going at night-fall to some other hiding-place, but he so changed his voice that, though he had been years with me, I did not know it. It would have been well if I had recognized him and he had joined me. His passing caused much anxiety and alarm; tryst could not be kept with Qādīr-bīrdī of Ghawā. Banda-‘alī said, ‘There are retired gardens in the suburbs of Karnān where no one will suspect us of being; let us go there and send to Qādīr-bīrdī and have him brought there.’ With this idea, we mounted and went to the Karnān suburbs. It was winter and very cold. They found a worn, coarse sheepskin coat and brought it to me; I put it on. They brought me a bowl of millet-porridge; I ate it and was wonderfully refreshed. ‘Have you sent off the man to Qādīr-bīrdī?’ said I to Banda-‘alī. ‘I have sent,’ he said. But those luckless, clownish mannikins seem to have agreed together to send the man to Taṃbal in Akhsī!

We went into a house and for awhile my eyes closed in sleep. Those mannikins artfully said to me, ‘You must not bestir yourself to leave Karnān till there is news of Qādīr-bīrdī but this house is right amongst the suburbs; on the outskirts the orchards are empty; no-one will suspect if we go there.’ Accordingly we mounted at mid-night and went to a distant orchard. Bābā Sairāmī kept watch from the roof of a house. Near mid-day he came down and said, ‘Commandant Yūsuf is coming.’ Great fear fell upon me! ‘Find out,’ I said, ‘whether he comes because he knows about me.’ He went and after some exchange of words, came back and said, ‘He says he met a foot-soldier in the Gate of Akhsī who said to him, “The pādshāh is in such a place,” that he told no-one, put the man with Walī the Treasurer whom he had made prisoner in the fight, and then gallopped off here.’ Said I, ‘How does it strike you?’ ‘They are all your servants,’ he said, ‘you must go. What else can you do? They will make you their ruler.’ Said I, ‘After such rebellion and fighting, with what confidence could I go?’ We were saying this, when Yūsuf knelt before me, saying, ‘Why should it be hidden? Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal has no news of you, but Shaikh Bāyazīd has and he sent me here.’ On hearing this, my state of mind was miserable indeed, for well is it understood that nothing in the world is worse than fear for one’s life. ‘Tell the truth!’ I said, ‘if the affair is likely to go on to worse, I will make ablution.’ Yūsuf swore oaths, but who would trust them? I knew the helplessness of my position. I rose and went to a corner of the garden, saying to myself, ‘If a man live a hundred years or a thousand years, at the last nothing …’⁶⁵⁸

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE

Friends are likely to have rescued Bābur from his dangerous isolation. His presence in Karnān was known both in Ghawā and in Akhsī; Muḥ. Bāqir Beg was at hand (f. 117); some of those he had dropped in his flight would follow him when their horses had had rest; Jahāngīr was somewhere north of the river with the half of Bābur’s former force (f. 112); The Khāns, with their long-extended line of march, may have been on the main road through or near Karnān. If Yūsuf took Bābur as a prisoner along the Akhsī road, there were these various chances of his meeting friends.

His danger was evaded; he joined his uncles and was with them, leading 1000 men (Sh. N. p. 268), when they were defeated at Archīān just before or in the season of Cancer, i. e. circa June (T. R. p. 164). What he was doing between the winter cold of Karnān (f. 117b) and June might have been known from his lost pages. Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ writes at length of one affair falling within the time, – Jahāngīr’s occupation of Khujand, its siege and its capture by Shaibānī. This capture will have occurred considerably more than a month before the defeat of The Khāns (Sh. N. p. 230).

It is not easy to decide in what month of 908 AH. they went into Farghāna or how long their campaign lasted. Bābur chronicles a series of occurrences, previous to the march of the army, which must have filled some time. The road over the Kīndīrlīk-pass was taken, one closed in Bābur’s time (f. 1b) though now open through the winter. Looking at the rapidity of his own movements in Farghāna, it seems likely that the pass was crossed after and not before its closed time. If so, the campaign may have covered 4 or 5 months. Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ’s account of Shaibāq’s operations strengthens this view. News that Aḥmad had joined Maḥmūd in Tāshkīnt (f. 102) went to Shaibānī in Khusrau Shāh’s territories; he saw his interests in Samarkand threatened by this combination of the Chaghatāī brothers to restore Bābur in Farghāna, came north therefore in order to help Taṃbal. He then waited a month in Samarkand (Sh. N. p. 230), besieged Jahāngīr, went back and stayed in Samarkand long enough to give his retainers time to equip for a year’s campaigning (l. c. p. 244) then went to Akhsī and so to Archīān.

Bābur’s statement (f. 110b) that The Khāns went from Andijān to the Khujand-crossing over the Sīr attracts attention because this they might have done if they had meant to leave Farghāna by Mīrzā-rabāt̤ but they are next heard of as at Akhsī. Why did they make that great détour? Why not have crossed opposite Akhsī or at Sang? Or if they had thought of retiring, what turned them east again? Did they place Jahāngīr in Khujand? Bābur’s missing pages would have answered these questions no doubt. It was useful for them to encamp where they did, east of Akhsī, because they there had near them a road by which reinforcement could come from Kāshghar or retreat be made. The Akhsī people told Shaibānī that he could easily overcome The Khāns if he went without warning, and if they had not withdrawn by the Kulja road (Sh. N. p. 262). By that road the few men who went with Aḥmad to Tāshkīnt (f. 103) may have been augmented to the force, enumerated as his in the battle by Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ (Sh. N. cap. LIII.).

When The Khāns were captured, Bābur escaped and made ‘for Mughūlistān,’ a vague direction seeming here to mean Tāshkīnt, but, finding his road blocked, in obedience to orders from Shaibāq that he and Abū’l-makāram were to be captured, he turned back and, by unfrequented ways, went into the hill-country of Sūkh and Hushīār. There he spent about a year in great misery (f. 14 and Ḥ. S. ii, 318). Of the wretchedness of the time Ḥaidar also writes. If anything was attempted in Farghāna in the course of those months, record of it has been lost with Bābur’s missing pages. He was not only homeless and poor, but shut in by enemies. Only the loyalty or kindness of the hill-tribes can have saved him and his few followers. His mother was with him; so also were the families of his men. How Qūtlūq-nigār contrived to join him from Tāshkīnt, though historically a small matter, is one he would chronicle. What had happened there after the Mughūl defeat, was that the horde had marched away for Kāshghar while Shāh Begīm remained in charge of her daughters with whom the Aūzbeg chiefs intended to contract alliance. Shaibānī’s orders for her stay and for the general exodus were communicated to her by her son, The Khān, in what Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ, quoting its purport, describes as a right beautiful letter (p. 296).

By some means Qūtlūq-nigār joined Bābur, perhaps helped by the circumstance that her daughter, Khān-zāda was Shaibāq’s wife. She spent at least some part of those hard months with him, when his fortunes were at their lowest ebb. A move becoming imperative, the ragged and destitute company started in mid-June 1504 (Muḥ. 910 AH.) on that perilous mountain journey to which Ḥaidar applies the Prophet’s dictum, ‘Travel is a foretaste of Hell,’ but of which the end was the establishment of a Tīmūrid dynasty in Hindūstān. To look down the years from the destitute Bābur to Akbar, Shāh-jahān and Aurangzīb is to see a great stream of human life flow from its source in his resolve to win upward, his quenchless courage and his abounding vitality. Not yet 22, the sport of older men’s intrigues, he had been tempered by failure, privation and dangers.

He left Sūkh intending to go to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā in Khurāsān but he changed this plan for one taking him to Kābul where a Tīmūrid might claim to dispossess the Arghūns, then holding it since the death, in 907 AH.of his uncle, Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā Kābulī.

SECTION II. KĀBUL⁶⁵⁹

910 AH. – JUNE 14th 1504 to JUNE 4th 1505 AD.⁶⁶⁰

(a. Bābur leaves Farghāna.)

In the month of Muḥarram, after leaving the Farghāna country intending to go to Khurāsān, I dismounted at Aīlāk-yīlāq,⁶⁶¹ one of the summer pastures of Ḥiṣār. In this camp I entered my 23rd year, and applied the razor to my face.⁶⁶² Those who, hoping in me, went with me into exile, were, small and great, between 2 and 300; they were almost all on foot, had walking-staves in their hands, brogues⁶⁶³ on their feet, and long coats⁶⁶⁴ on their shoulders. So destitute were we that we had but two tents (chādar) amongst us; my own used to be pitched for my mother, and they set an ālāchūq at each stage for me to sit in.⁶⁶⁵

Though we had started with the intention of going into Khurāsān, yet with things as they were⁶⁶⁶ something was hoped for from the Ḥiṣār country and Khusrau Shāh’s retainers. Every few days some-one would come in from the country or a tribe or the (Mughūl) horde, whose words made it probable that we had growing ground for hope. Just then Mullā Bābā of Pashāghar came back, who had been our envoy to Khusrau Shāh; from Khusrau Shāh he brought nothing likely to please, but he did from the tribes and the horde.

Three or four marches beyond Aīlāk, when halt was made at a place near Ḥiṣār called Khwāja ‘Imād, Muḥibb-‘alī, the Armourer, came to me from Khusrau Shāh. Through Khusrau Shāh’s territories I have twice happened to pass;⁶⁶⁷ renowned though he was for kindness and liberality, he neither time showed me the humanity he had shown to the meanest of men.

As we were hoping something from the country and the tribes, we made delay at every stage. At this critical point Sherīm T̤aghāī, than whom no man of mine was greater, thought of leaving me because he was not keen to go into Khurāsān. He had sent all his family off and stayed himself unencumbered, when after the defeat at Sar-i-pul (906 AH.) I went back to defend Samarkand; he was a bit of a coward and he did this sort of thing several times over.

(b. Bābur joined by one of Khusrau Shāh’s kinsmen.)

After we reached Qabādīān, a younger brother of Khusrau Shāh, Bāqī Chaghānīānī, whose holdings were Chaghānīān,⁶⁶⁸ Shahr-i-ṣafā and Tīrmīẕ, sent the khatīb⁶⁶⁹ of Qarshī to me to express his good wishes and his desire for alliance, and, after we had crossed the Amū at the Aūbāj-ferry, he came himself to wait on me. By his wish we moved down the river to opposite Tīrmīẕ, where, without fear [or, without going over himself],⁶⁷⁰ he had their families⁶⁷¹ and their goods brought across to join us. This done, we set out together for Kāhmard and Bāmīān, then held by his son⁶⁷² Aḥmad-i-qāsim, the son of Khusrau Shāh’s sister. Our plan was to leave the households (awī-aīl) safe in Fort Ajar of the Kāhmard-valley and to take action wherever action might seem well. At Aībak, Yār-‘alī Balāl,⁶⁷³ who had fled from Khusrau Shāh, joined us with several braves; he had been with me before, and had made good use of his sword several times in my presence, but was parted from me in the recent throneless times⁶⁷⁴ and had gone to Khusrau Shāh. He represented to me that the Mughūls in Khusrau Shāh’s service wished me well. Moreover, Qaṃbar-‘alī Beg, known also as Qaṃbar-‘alī Silākh (Skinner), fled to me after we reached the Zindān-valley.⁶⁷⁵

(c. Occurrences in Kākmard.)

We reached Kāhmard with three or four marches and deposited our households and families in Ajar. While we stayed there, Jahāngīr Mīrzā married (Aī Begīm) the daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā and Khān-zāda Begīm, who had been set aside for him during the lifetime of the Mīrzās.⁶⁷⁶

Meantime Bāqī Beg urged it upon me, again and again, that two rulers in one country, or two chiefs in one army are a source of faction and disorder – a foundation of dissension and ruin. “For they have said, ‘Ten darwīshes can sleep under one blanket, but two kings cannot find room in one clime.’

If a man of God eat half a loaf,
He gives the other to a darwīsh;
Let a king grip the rule of a clime,
He dreams of another to grip.”⁶⁷⁷

Bāqī Beg urged further that Khusrau Shāah’s retainers and followers would be coming in that day or the next to take service with the Pādshāh (i. e. Bābur); that there were such sedition-mongers with them as the sons of Ayūb Begchīk, besides other who had been the stirrers and spurs to disloyalty amongst their Mīrzās,⁶⁷⁸ and that if, at this point, Jahāngīr Mīrzā were dismissed, on good and friendly terms, for Khurāsān, it would remove a source of later repentance. Urge it as he would, however, I did not accept his suggestion, because it is against my nature to do an injury to my brethren, older or younger,⁶⁷⁹ or to any kinsman soever, even when something untoward has happened. Though formerly between Jahāngīr Mīrzā and me, resentments and recriminations had occurred about our rule and retainers, yet there was nothing whatever then to arouse anger against him; he had come out of that country (i. e. Farghāna) with me and was behaving like a blood-relation and a servant. But in the end it was just as Bāqī Beg predicted; – those tempters to disloyalty, that is to say, Ayūb’s Yūsuf and Ayūb’s Bihlūl, left me for Jahāngīr Mīrzā, took up a hostile and mutinous position, parted him from me, and conveyed him into Khurāsān.

(d. Co-operation invited against Shaibāq Khān.)

In those days came letters from Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, long and far-fetched letters which are still in my possession and in that of others, written to Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā, myself, Khusrau Shāh and Ẕū’n-nūn Beg, all to the same purport, as follows: – “When the three brothers, Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā, Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā, and Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā, joined together and advanced against me, I defended the bank of the Murgh-āb⁶⁸⁰ in such a way that they retired without being able to effect anything. Now if the Aūzbegs advance, I might myself guard the bank of the Murgh-āb again; let Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā leave men to defend the forts of Balkh, Shibarghān, and Andikhūd while he himself guards Girzawān, the Zang-valley, and the hill-country thereabouts.” As he had heard of my being in those parts, he wrote to me also, “Do you make fast Kāhmard, Ajar, and that hill-tract; let Khusrau Shāh place trusty men in Ḥiṣār and Qūndūz; let his younger brother Walī make fast Badakhshān and the Khutlān hills; then the Aūzbeg will retire, able to do nothing.”

These letters threw us into despair; – for why? Because at that time there was in Tīmūr Beg’s territory (yūrt) no ruler so great as Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, whether by his years, armed strength, or dominions; it was to be expected, therefore, that envoys would go, treading on each other’s heels, with clear and sharp orders, such as, “Arrange for so many boats at the Tīrmīz, Kilīf, and Kīrkī ferries,” “Get any quantity of bridge material together,” and “Well watch the ferries above Tūqūz-aūlūm,”⁶⁸¹ so that men whose spirit years of Aūzbeg oppression had broken, might be cheered to hope again.⁶⁸² But how could hope live in tribe or horde when a great ruler like Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, sitting in the place of Tīmūr Beg, spoke, not of marching forth to meet the enemy, but only of defence against his attack?

When we had deposited in Ajar what had come with us of hungry train (aj aūrūq) and household (awī-aīl), together with the families of Bāqī Beg, his son, Muḥ. Qāsim, his soldiers and his tribesmen, with all their goods, we moved out with our men.

(e. Increase of Bābur’s following.)

One man after another came in from Khusrau Shāh’s Mughūls and said, “We of the Mughūl horde, desiring the royal welfare, have drawn off from T̤āīkhān (T̤ālīkān) towards Ishkīmīsh and Fūlūl. Let the Pādshāh advance as fast as possible, for the greater part of Khusrau Shāh’s force has broken up and is ready to take service with him.” Just then news arrived that Shaibāq Khān, after taking Andijān,⁶⁸³ was getting to horse again against Ḥiṣār and Qūndūz. On hearing this, Khusrau Shāh, unable to stay in Qūndūz, marched out with all the men he had, and took the road for Kābul. No sooner had he left than his old servant, the able and trusted Mullā Muḥammad Turkistānī made Qūndūz fast for Shaibāq Khān.

Three or four thousand heads-of-houses in the Mughūl horde, former dependants of Khusrau Shāh, brought their families and joined us when, going by way of Sham-tū, we were near the Qīzīl-sū.⁶⁸⁴

(f. Qaṃbar-‘alī, the Skinner, dismissed.)

Qaṃbar-‘alī Beg’s foolish talk has been mentioned several times already; his manners were displeasing to Bāqī Beg; to gratify Bāqī Beg, he was dismissed. Thereafter his son, ‘Abdu’l-shukūr, was in Jahāngīr Mīrzā’s service.

(g. Khusrau Shāh waits on Bābur.)

Khusrau Shāh was much upset when he heard that the Mughūl horde had joined me; seeing nothing better to do for himself, he sent his son-in-law, Ayūb’s Yaq‘ūb, to make profession of well-wishing and submission to me, and respectfully to represent that he would enter my service if I would make terms and compact with him. His offer was accepted, because Bāqī Chaghānīānī was a man of weight, and, however steady in his favourable disposition to me, did not overlook his brother’s side in this matter. Compact was made that Khusrau Shāh’s life should be safe, and that whatever amount of his goods he selected, should not be refused him. After giving Yaq‘ūb leave to go, we marched down the Qīzīl-sū and dismounted near to where it joins the water of Andar-āb.

Next day, one in the middle of the First Rabī‘ (end of August, 1504 AD.), riding light, I crossed the Andar-āb water and took my seat under a large plane-tree near Dūshī, and thither came Khusrau Shāh, in pomp and splendour, with a great company of men. According to rule and custom, he dismounted some way off and then made his approach. Three times he knelt when we saw one another, three times also on taking leave; he knelt once when asking after my welfare, once again when he offered his tribute, and he did the same with Jahāngīr Mīrzā and with Mīrzā Khān (Wais). That sluggish old mannikin who through so many years had just pleased himself, lacking of sovereignty one thing only, namely, to read the Khut̤ba in his own name, now knelt 25 or 26 times in succession, and came and went till he was so wearied out that he tottered forward. His many years of begship and authority vanished from his view. When we had seen one another and he had offered his gift, I desired him to be seated. We stayed in that place for one or two garīs,⁶⁸⁵ exchanging tale and talk. His conversation was vapid and empty, presumably because he was a coward and false to his salt. Two things he said were extraordinary for the time when, under his eyes, his trusty and trusted retainers were becoming mine, and when his affairs had reached the point that he, the sovereign-aping mannikin, had had to come, willy-nilly, abased and unhonoured, to what sort of an interview! One of the things he said was this: – When condoled with for the desertion of his men, he replied, “Those very servants have four times left me and returned.” The other was said when I had asked him where his brother Walī would cross the Amū and when he would arrive. “If he find a ford, he will soon be here, but when waters rise, fords change; the (Persian) proverb has it, ‘The waters have carried down the fords.’” These words God brought to his tongue in that hour of the flowing away of his own authority and following!

After sitting a garī or two, I mounted and rode back to camp, he for his part returning to his halting-place. On that day his begs, with their servants, great and small, good and bad, and tribe after tribe began to desert him and come, with their families, to me. Between the two Prayers of the next afternoon not a man remained in his presence.

“Say, – O God! who possessest the kingdom! Thou givest it to whom Thou wilt and Thou takest it from whom Thou wilt! In Thy hand is good, for Thou art almighty.”⁶⁸⁶

Wonderful is His power! This man, once master of 20 or 30,000 retainers, once owning Sl. Maḥmūd’s dominions from Qaḥlūgha, – known also as the Iron-gate, – to the range of Hindū-kush, whose old mannikin of a tax-gatherer, Ḥasan Barlās by name, had made us march, had made us halt, with all the tax-gatherer’s roughness, from Aīlāk to Aūbāj,⁶⁸⁷ that man He so abased and so bereft of power that, with no blow struck, no sound made, he stood, without command over servants, goods, or life, in the presence of a band of 200 or 300 men, defeated and destitute as we were.

In the evening of the day on which we had seen Khusrau Shāh and gone back to camp, Mīrzā Khān came to my presence and demanded vengeance on him for the blood of his brothers.⁶⁸⁸ Many of us were at one with him, for truly it is right, both by Law and common justice, that such men should get their desserts, but, as terms had been made, Khusrau Shāh was let go free. An order was given that he should be allowed to take whatever of his goods he could convey; accordingly he loaded up, on three or four strings of mules and camels, all jewels, gold, silver, and precious things he had, and took them with him.⁶⁸⁹ Sherīm T̤aghāī was told off to escort him, who after setting Khusrau Shāh on his road for Khurāsān, by way of Ghūrī and Dahānah, was to go to Kāhmard and bring the families after us to Kābul.

(h. Bābur marches for Kābul.)

Marching from that camp for Kābul, we dismounted in Khwāja Zaid.

On that day, Ḥamza Bī Mangfīt,⁶⁹⁰ at the head of Aūzbeg raiders, was over-running round about Dūshī. Sayyid Qāsim, the Lord of the Gate, and Aḥmad-i-qāsim Kohbur were sent with several braves against him; they got up with him, beat his Aūzbegs well, cut off and brought in a few heads.

In this camp all the armour (jība) of Khusrau Shāh’s armoury was shared out. There may have been as many as 7 or 800 coats-of-mail (joshan) and horse accoutrements (kūhah);⁶⁹¹ these were the one thing he left behind; many pieces of porcelain also fell into our hands, but, these excepted, there was nothing worth looking at.

With four or five marches we reached Ghūr-bund, and there dismounted in Ushtur-shahr. We got news there that Muqīm’s chief beg, Sherak (var. Sherka) Arghūn, was lying along the Bārān, having led an army out, not through hearing of me, but to hinder ‘Abdu’r-razzāq Mīrzā from passing along the Panjhīr-road, he having fled from Kābul⁶⁹² and being then amongst the Tarkalānī Afghāns towards Lamghān. On hearing this we marched forward, starting in the afternoon and pressing on through the dark till, with the dawn, we surmounted the Hūpīān-pass.⁶⁹³

I had never seen Suhail;⁶⁹⁴ when I came out of the pass I saw a star, bright and low. “May not that be Suhail?” said I. Said they, “It is Suhail.” Bāqī Chaghānīānī recited this couplet; —⁶⁹⁵

“How far dost thou shine, O Suhail, and where dost thou rise?
A sign of good luck is thine eye to the man on whom it may light.”

The Sun was a spear’s-length high⁶⁹⁶ when we reached the foot of the Sanjid (Jujube) – valley and dismounted. Our scouting braves fell in with Sherak below the Qarā-bāgh,⁶⁹⁷ near Aīkarī-yār, and straightway got to grips with him. After a little of some sort of fighting, our men took the upper hand, hurried their adversaries off, unhorsed 70-80 serviceable braves and brought them in. We gave Sherak his life and he took service with us.

(i. Death of Walī of Khusrau.)

The various clans and tribes whom Khusrau Shāh, without troubling himself about them, had left in Qūndūz, and also the Mughūl horde, were in five or six bodies (būlāk). One of those belonging to Badakhshān, – it was the Rūstā-hazāra,: – came, with Sayyidīm ‘Alī darbān,⁶⁹⁸ across the Panjhīr-pass to this camp, did me obeisance and took service with me. Another body came under Ayūb’s Yūsuf and Ayūb’s Bihlūl; it also took service with me. Another came from Khutlān, under Khusrau Shāh’s younger brother, Walī; another, consisting of the (Mughūl) tribesmen (aīmāq) who had been located in Yīlānchaq, Nikdiri (?), and the Qūndūz country, came also. The last-named two came by Andar-āb and Sar-i-āb,⁶⁹⁹ meaning to cross by the Panjhīr-pass; at Sar-i-āb the tribesmen were ahead; Walī came up behind; they held the road, fought and beat him. He himself fled to the Aūzbegs,⁷⁰⁰ and Shaibāq Khān had his head struck off in the Square (Chār-sū) of Samarkand; his followers, beaten and plundered, came on with the tribesmen, and like these, took service with me. With them came Sayyid Yūsuf Beg (the Grey-wolfer).

(j. Kābul gained.)

From that camp we marched to the Āq-sarāī meadow of the Qarā-bāgh and there dismounted. Khusrau Shāh’s people were well practised in oppression and violence; they tyrannized over one after another till at last I had up one of Sayyidīm ‘Alī’s good braves to my Gate⁷⁰¹ and there beaten for forcibly taking a jar of oil. There and then he just died under the blows; his example kept the rest down.

We took counsel in that camp whether or not to go at once against Kābul. Sayyid Yūsuf and some others thought that, as winter was near, our first move should be into Lamghān, from which place action could be taken as advantage offered. Bāqī Beg and some others saw it good to move on Kābul at once; this plan was adopted; we marched forward and dismounted in Ābā-qūrūq.

My mother and the belongings left behind in Kāhmard rejoined us at Ābā-qūrūq. They had been in great danger, the particulars of which are these: – Sherīm T̤aghāī had gone to set Khusrau Shāh on his way for Khurāsān, and this done, was to fetch the families from Kāhmard. When he reached Dahānah, he found he was not his own master; Khusrau Shāh went on with him into Kāhmard, where was his sister’s son, Aḥmad-i-qāsim. These two took up an altogether wrong position towards the families in Kāhmard. Hereupon a number of Bāqī Beg’s Mughūls, who were with the families, arranged secretly with Sherīm T̤aghāī to lay hands on Khusrau Shāh and Aḥmad-i-qāsim. The two heard of it, fled along the Kāhmard-valley on the Ajar side⁷⁰² and made for Khurāsān. To bring this about was really what Sherīm T̤aghāī and the Mughūls wanted. Set free from their fear of Khusrau Shāh by his flight, those in charge of the families got them out of Ajar, but when they reached Kāhmard, the Sāqānchī (var. Asīqanchī) tribe blocked the road, like an enemy, and plundered the families of most of Bāqī Beg’s men.⁷⁰³ They made prisoner Qul-i-bāyazīd’s little son, Tīzak; he came into Kābul three or four years later. The plundered and unhappy families crossed by the Qībchāq-pass, as we had done, and they rejoined us in Ābā-qūrūq.

Leaving that camp we went, with one night’s halt, to the Chālāk-meadow, and there dismounted. After counsel taken, it was decided to lay siege to Kābul, and we marched forward. With what men of the centre there were, I dismounted between Ḥaidar Tāqī’s⁷⁰⁴ garden and the tomb of Qul-i-bāyazīd, the Taster (bakāwal);⁷⁰⁵ Jahāngīr Mīrzā, with the men of the right, dismounted in my great Four-gardens (Chār-bāgh), Nāṣir Mīrzā, with the left, in the meadow of Qūtlūq-qadam’s tomb. People of ours went repeatedly to confer with Muqīm; they sometimes brought excuses back, sometimes words making for agreement. His tactics were the sequel of his dispatch, directly after Sherak’s defeat, of a courier to his father and elder brother (in Qandahār); he made delays because he was hoping in them.

One day our centre, right, and left were ordered to put on their mail and their horses’ mail, to go close to the town, and to display their equipment so as to strike terror on those within. Jahāngīr Mīrzā and the right went straight forward by the Kūcha-bāgh;⁷⁰⁶ I, with the centre, because there was water, went along the side of Qūtlūq-qadam’s tomb to a mound facing the rising-ground;⁷⁰⁷ the van collected above Qūtlūq-qadam’s bridge, – at that time, however, there was no bridge. When the braves, showing themselves off, galloped close up to the Curriers'-gate,⁷⁰⁸ a few who had come out through it fled in again without making any stand. A crowd of Kābulīs who had come out to see the sight raised a great dust when they ran away from the high slope of the glacis of the citadel (i. e. Bālā-ḥiṣār). A number of pits had been dug up the rise between the bridge and the gate, and hidden under sticks and rubbish; Sl. Qulī Chūnāq and several others were thrown as they galloped over them. A few braves of the right exchanged sword-cuts with those who came out of the town, in amongst the lanes and gardens, but as there was no order to engage, having done so much, they retired.

Those in the fort becoming much perturbed, Muqīm made offer through the begs, to submit and surrender the town. Bāqī Beg his mediator, he came and waited on me, when all fear was chased from his mind by our entire kindness and favour. It was settled that next day he should march out with retainers and following, goods and effects, and should make the town over to us. Having in mind the good practice Khusrau Shāh’s retainers had had in indiscipline and longhandedness, we appointed Jahāngīr Mīrzā and Nāṣir Mīrzā with the great and household begs, to escort Muqīm’s family out of Kābul⁷⁰⁹ and to bring out Muqīm himself with his various dependants, goods and effects. Camping-ground was assigned to him at Tīpa.⁷¹⁰ When the Mīrzās and the Begs went at dawn to the Gate, they saw much mobbing and tumult of the common people, so they sent me a man to say, “Unless you come yourself, there will be no holding these people in.” In the end I got to horse, had two or three persons shot, two or three cut in pieces, and so stamped the rising down. Muqīm and his belongings then got out, safe and sound, and they betook themselves to Tīpa.

It was in the last ten days of the Second Rabī‘ (Oct. 1504 AD.)⁷¹¹ that without a fight, without an effort, by Almighty God’s bounty and mercy, I obtained and made subject to me Kābul and Ghaznī and their dependent districts.

DESCRIPTION OF KĀBUL⁷¹²

The Kābul country is situated in the Fourth climate and in the midst of cultivated lands.⁷¹³ On the east it has the Lamghānāt,⁷¹⁴ Parashāwar (Pashāwar), Hash(t) – nagar and some of the countries of Hindūstān. On the west it has the mountain region in which are Karnūd (?) and Ghūr, now the refuge and dwelling-places of the Hazāra and Nikdīrī (var. Nikudārī) tribes. On the north, separated from it by the range of Hindū-kush, it has the Qūndūz and Andar-āb countries. On the south, it has Farmūl, Naghr (var. Naghz), Bannū and Afghānistān.⁷¹⁵

(a. Town and environs of Kābul.)

The Kābul district itself is of small extent, has its greatest length from east to west, and is girt round by mountains. Its walled-town connects with one of these, rather a low one known as Shāh-of-Kābul because at some time a (Hindū) Shāh of Kābul built a residence on its summit.⁷¹⁶ Shāh-of-Kābul begins at the Dūrrīn narrows and ends at those of Dih-i-yaq‘ūb⁷¹⁷; it may be 4 miles (2 shar‘ī) round; its skirt is covered with gardens fertilized from a canal which was brought along the hill-slope in the time of my paternal uncle, Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā by his guardian, Wais Atāka.⁷¹⁸ The water of this canal comes to an end in a retired corner, a quarter known as Kul-kīna⁷¹⁹ where much debauchery has gone on. About this place it sometimes used to be said, in jesting parody of Khwāja Ḥāfiẓ⁷²⁰, – “Ah! the happy, thoughtless time when, with our names in ill-repute, we lived days of days at Kul-kīna!”

East of Shāh-of-Kabūl and south of the walled-town lies a large pool⁷²¹ about a 2 miles [shar‘ī] round. From the town side of the mountain three smallish springs issue, two near Kul-kīna; Khwāja Shamū’s⁷²² tomb is at the head of one; Khwāja Khiẓr’s Qadam-gāh⁷²³ at the head of another, and the third is at a place known as Khwāja Raushānāī, over against Khwāja ‘Abdu’ṣ-ṣamad. On a detached rock of a spur of Shāh-of-Kābul, known as ‘Uqābain,⁷²⁴ stands the citadel of Kābul with the great walled-town at its north end, lying high in excellent air, and overlooking the large pool already mentioned, and also three meadows, namely, Siyāh-sang (Black-rock), Sūng-qūrghān (Fort-back), and Chālāk (Highwayman?), – a most beautiful outlook when the meadows are green. The north-wind does not fail Kābul in the heats; people call it the Parwān-wind⁷²⁵; it makes a delightful temperature in the windowed houses on the northern part of the citadel. In praise of the citadel of Kābul, Mullā Muḥammad T̤ālib Mu‘ammāī (the Riddler)⁷²⁶

used to recite this couplet, composed on Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā’s name: —

Drink wine in the castle of Kābul and send the cup round without pause;

For Kābul is mountain, is river, is city, is lowland in one.⁷²⁷

(b. Kābul as a trading-town.)

Just as ‘Arabs call every place outside ‘Arab (Arabia), ‘Ajam, so Hindūstānīs call every place outside Hindūstān, Khurāsān. There are two trade-marts on the land-route between Hindūstān and Khurāsān; one is Kābul, the other, Qandahār. To Kābul caravans come from Kāshghar,⁷²⁸ Farghāna,Turkistān, Samarkand, Bukhārā, Balkh, Ḥiṣār and Badakhshān. To Qandahār they come from Khurāsān. Kābul is an excellent trading-centre; if merchants went to Khīta or to Rūm,⁷²⁹ they might make no higher profit. Down to Kābul every year come 7, 8, or 10,000 horses and up to it, from Hindūstān, come every year caravans of 10, 15 or 20,000 heads-of-houses, bringing slaves (barda), white cloth, sugar-candy, refined and common sugars, and aromatic roots. Many a trader is not content with a profit of 30 or 40 on 10.⁷³⁰ In Kābul can be had the products of Khurāsān, Rūm, ‘Irāq and Chīn (China); while it is Hindūstān’s own market.

(c. Products and climate of Kābul.)

In the country of Kābul, there are hot and cold districts close to one another. In one day, a man may go out of the town of Kābul to where snow never falls, or he may go, in two sidereal hours, to where it never thaws, unless when the heats are such that it cannot possibly lie.

Fruits of hot and cold climates are to be had in the districts near the town. Amongst those of the cold climate, there are had in the town the grape, pomegranate, apricot, apple, quince, pear, peach, plum, sinjid, almond and walnut.⁷³¹ I had cuttings of the ālū-bālū⁷³² brought there and planted; they grew and have done well. Of fruits of the hot climate people bring into the town; – from the Lamghānāt, the orange, citron, amlūk (diospyrus lotus), and sugar-cane; this last I had had brought and planted there;⁷³³– from Nijr-au (Nijr-water), they bring the jīl-ghūza,⁷³⁴ and, from the hill-tracts, much honey. Bee-hives are in use; it is only from towards Ghaznī, that no honey comes.

The rhubarb⁷³⁵ of the Kābul district is good, its quinces and plums very good, so too its badrang;⁷³⁶ it grows an excellent grape, known as the water-grape.⁷³⁷ Kābul wines are heady, those of the Khwāja Khāwand Sa‘īd hill-skirt being famous for their strength; at this time however I can only repeat the praise of others about them: —⁷³⁸

The flavour of the wine a drinker knows;
What chance have sober men to know it?

Kābul is not fertile in grain, a four or five-fold return is reckoned good there; nor are its melons first-rate, but they are not altogether bad when grown from Khurāsān seed.

It has a very pleasant climate; if the world has another so pleasant, it is not known. Even in the heats, one cannot sleep at night without a fur-coat.⁷³⁹ Although the snow in most places lies deep in winter, the cold is not excessive; whereas in Samarkand and Tabrīz, both, like Kābul, noted for their pleasant climate, the cold is extreme.

(d. Meadows of Kābul.)

There are good meadows on the four sides of Kābul. An excellent one, Sūng-qūrghān, is some 4 miles (2 kuroh) to the north-east; it has grass fit for horses and few mosquitos. To the north-west is the Chālāk meadow, some 2 miles (1 shar‘ī) away, a large one but in it mosquitos greatly trouble the horses. On the west is the Dūrrīn, in fact there are two, Tīpa and Qūsh-nādir (var. nāwar), – if two are counted here, there would be five in all. Each of these is about 2 miles from the town; both are small, have grass good for horses, and no mosquitos; Kābul has no others so good. On the east is the Siyāh-sang meadow with Qūtlūq-qadam’s tomb⁷⁴⁰ between it and the Currier’s-gate; it is not worth much because, in the heats, it swarms with mosquitos. Kamarī⁷⁴¹ meadow adjoins it; counting this in, the meadows of Kābul would be six, but they are always spoken of as four.

(e. Mountain-passes into Kābul.)

The country of Kābul is a fastness hard for a foreign foe to make his way into.

The Hindū-kush mountains, which separate Kābul from Balkh, Qūndūz and Badakhshān, are crossed by seven roads.⁷⁴² Three of these lead out of Panjhīr (Panj-sher), viz. Khawāk, the uppermost, T̤ūl, the next lower, and Bāzārak.⁷⁴³ Of the passes on them, the one on the T̤ūl road is the best, but the road itself is rather the longest whence, seemingly, it is called T̤ūl. Bāzārak is the most direct; like T̤ūl, it leads over into Sar-i-āb; as it passes through Pārandī, local people call its main pass, the Pārandī. Another road leads up through Parwān; it has seven minor passes, known as Haft-bacha (Seven-younglings), between Parwān and its main pass (Bāj-gāh). It is joined at its main pass by two roads from Andar-āb, which go on to Parwān by it. This is a road full of difficulties. Out of Ghūr-bund, again, three roads lead over. The one next to Parwān, known as the Yāngī-yūl pass (New-road), goes through Wālīān to Khinjan; next above this is the Qīpchāq road, crossing to where the water of Andar-āb meets the Sūrkh-āb (Qīzīl-sū); this also is an excellent road; and the third leads over the Shibr-tū pass;⁷⁴⁴ those crossing by this in the heats take their way by Bāmīān and Saighān, but those crossing by it in winter, go on by Āb-dara (Water-valley).⁷⁴⁵ Shibr-tū excepted, all the Hindū-kush roads are closed for three or four months in winter,⁷⁴⁶ because no road through a valley-bottom is passable when the waters are high. If any-one thinks to cross the Hindū-kush at that time, over the mountains instead of through a valley-bottom, his journey is hard indeed. The time to cross is during the three or four autumn months when the snow is less and the waters are low. Whether on the mountains or in the valley-bottoms, Kāfir highwaymen are not few.

The road from Kābul into Khurāsān passes through Qandahār; it is quite level, without a pass.

Four roads lead into Kābul from the Hindūstān side; one by rather a low pass through the Khaibar mountains, another by way of Bangash, another by way of Naghr (var. Naghz),⁷⁴⁷ and another through Farmūl;⁷⁴⁸ the passes being low also in the three last-named. These roads are all reached from three ferries over the Sind. Those who take the Nīl-āb⁷⁴⁹ ferry, come on through the Lamghānāt.⁷⁵⁰ In winter, however, people ford the Sind-water (at Hāru) above its junction with the Kābul-water,⁷⁵¹ and ford this also. In most of my expeditions into Hindūstān, I crossed those fords, but this last time (932 AH. -1525 AD.), when I came, defeated Sl. Ibrāhīm and conquered the country, I crossed by boat at Nīl-āb. Except at the one place mentioned above, the Sind-water can be crossed only by boat. Those again, who cross at Dīn-kot⁷⁵² go on through Bangash. Those crossing at Chaupāra, if they take the Farmūl road, go on to Ghaznī, or, if they go by the Dasht, go on to Qandahār.⁷⁵³

(f. Inhabitants of Kābul.)

There are many differing tribes in the Kābul country; in its dales and plains are Turks and clansmen⁷⁵⁴ and ‘Arabs; in its town and in many villages, Sārts; out in the districts and also in villages are the Pashāī, Parājī, Tājīk, Bīrkī and Afghān tribes. In the western mountains are the Hazāra and Nikdīrī tribes, some of whom speak the Mughūlī tongue. In the north-eastern mountains are the places of the Kāfirs, such as Kitūr (Gawār?) and Gibrik. To the south are the places of the Afghān tribes.

Eleven or twelve tongues are spoken in Kābul, – ‘Arabī, Persian, Turkī, Mughūlī, Hindī, Afghānī, Pashāī, Parājī, Gibrī, Bīrkī and Lamghānī. If there be another country with so many differing tribes and such a diversity of tongues, it is not known.

(e. Sub-divisions of the Kābul country.)

The [Kābul] country has fourteen tūmāns.⁷⁵⁵

Bajaur, Sawād and Hash-nagar may at one time have been dependencies of Kābul, but they now have no resemblance to cultivated countries (wilāyāt), some lying desolate because of the Afghāns, others being now subject to them.

In the east of the country of Kābul is the Lamghānāt, 5 tūmāns and 2 bulūks of cultivated lands.⁷⁵⁶ The largest of these is Nīngnahār, sometimes written Nagarahār in the histories.⁷⁵⁷ Its dārogha’s residence is in Adīnapūr,⁷⁵⁸ some 13 yīghāch east of Kābul by a very bad and tiresome road, going in three or four places over small hill-passes, and in three or four others, through narrows.⁷⁵⁹ So long as there was no cultivation along it, the Khirilchī and other Afghān thieves used to make it their beat, but it has become safe⁷⁶⁰ since I had it peopled at Qarā-tū,⁷⁶¹ below Qūrūq-sāī. The hot and cold climates are separated on this road by the pass of Bādām-chashma (Almond-spring); on its Kābul side snow falls, none at Qūrūq-sāī, towards the Lamghānāt.⁷⁶² After descending this pass, another world comes into view, other trees, other plants (or grasses), other animals, and other manners and customs of men. Nīngnahār is nine torrents (tūqūz-rūd).⁷⁶³ It grows good crops of rice and corn, excellent and abundant oranges, citrons and pomegranates. In 914 AH. (1508-9 AD.) I laid out the Four-gardens, known as the Bāgh-i-wafā (Garden-of-fidelity), on a rising-ground, facing south and having the Sūrkh-rūd between it and Fort Adīnapūr.⁷⁶⁴ There oranges, citrons and pomegranates grow in abundance. The year I defeated Pahār Khān and took Lāhor and Dipālpūr,⁷⁶⁵ I had plantains (bananas) brought and planted there; they did very well. The year before I had had sugar-cane planted there; it also did well; some of it was sent to Bukhārā and Badakhshān.⁷⁶⁶ The garden lies high, has running-water close at hand, and a mild winter climate. In the middle of it, a one-mill stream flows constantly past the little hill on which are the four garden-plots. In the south-west part of it there is a reservoir, 10 by 10,⁷⁶⁷ round which are orange-trees and a few pomegranates, the whole encircled by a trefoil-meadow. This is the best part of the garden, a most beautiful sight when the oranges take colour. Truly that garden is admirably situated!

The Safed-koh runs along the south of Nīngnahār, dividing it from Bangash; no riding-road crosses it; nine torrents (tūqūz-rūd) issue from it.⁷⁶⁸ It is called Safed-koh⁷⁶⁹ because its snow never lessens; none falls in the lower parts of its valleys, a half-day’s journey from the snow-line. Many places along it have an excellent climate; its waters are cold and need no ice.

The Sūrkh-rūd flows along the south of Adīnapūr. The fort stands on a height having a straight fall to the river of some 130 ft. (40-50 qārī) and isolated from the mountain behind it on the north; it is very strongly placed. That mountain runs between Nīngnahār and Lamghān⁷⁷⁰; on its head snow falls when it snows in Kābul, so Lamghānīs know when it has snowed in the town.

In going from Kābul into the Lamghānāt,⁷⁷¹– if people come by Qūrūq-sāī, one road goes on through the Dīrī-pass, crosses the Bārān-water at Būlān, and so on into the Lamghānāt, – another goes through Qarā-tū, below Qūrūq-sāī, crosses the Bārān-water at Aūlūgh-nūr (Great-rock?), and goes into Lamghān by the pass of Bād-i-pīch.⁷⁷² If however people come by Nijr-aū, they traverse Badr-aū (Tag-aū), and Qarā-nakariq (?), and go on through the pass of Bād-i-pīch.

Although Nīngnahār is one of the five tūmāns of the Lamghān tūmān the name Lamghānāt applies strictly only to the three (mentioned below).

One of the three is the ‘Alī-shang tūmān, to the north of which are fastness-mountains, connecting with Hindū-kush and inhabited by Kāfirs only. What of Kāfiristān lies nearest to ‘Alī-shang, is Mīl out of which its torrent issues. The tomb of Lord Lām,⁷⁷³ father of his Reverence the prophet Nuḥ (Noah), is in this tūmān. In some histories he is called Lamak and Lamakān. Some people are observed often to change kāf for ghain (k for gh); it would seem to be on this account that the country is called Lamghān.

The second is Alangār. The part of Kāfiristān nearest to it is Gawār (Kawār), out of which its torrent issues (the Gau or Kau). This torrent joins that of ‘Alī-shang and flows with it into the Bārān-water, below Mandrāwar, which is the third tūmān of the Lamghānāt.

Of the two bulūks of Lamghān one is the Nūr-valley.⁷⁷⁴ This is a place (yīr) without a second⁷⁷⁵; its fort is on a beak (tūmshūq) of rock in the mouth of the valley, and has a torrent on each side; its rice is grown on steep terraces, and it can be traversed by one road only.⁷⁷⁶ It has the orange, citron and other fruits of hot climates in abundance, a few dates even. Trees cover the banks of both the torrents below the fort; many are amlūk, the fruit of which some Turks call qarā-yīmīsh;⁷⁷⁷ here they are many, but none have been seen elsewhere. The valley grows grapes also, all trained on trees.⁷⁷⁸ Its wines are those of Lamghān that have reputation. Two sorts of grapes are grown, the arah-tāshī and the sūhān-tāshī;⁷⁷⁹ the first are yellowish, the second, full-red of fine colour. The first make the more cheering wine, but it must be said that neither wine equals its reputation for cheer. High up in one of its glens, apes (maimūn) are found, none below. Those people (i. e. Nūrīs) used to keep swine but they have given it up in our time.⁷⁸⁰

Another tūmān of Lamghān is Kūnār-with-Nūr-gal. It lies somewhat out-of-the-way, remote from the Lamghānāt, with its borders in amongst the Kāfir lands; on these accounts its people give in tribute rather little of what they have. The Chaghān-sarāī water enters it from the north-east, passes on into the bulūk of Kāma, there joins the Bārān-water and with that flows east.

Mīr Sayyid ‘Alī Hamadānī,⁷⁸¹– God’s mercy on him! – coming here as he journeyed, died 2 miles (1 shar‘ī) above Kūnār. His disciples carried his body to Khutlān. A shrine was erected at the honoured place of his death, of which I made the circuit when I came and took Chaghān-sarāī in 920 AH.⁷⁸²

The orange, citron and coriander⁷⁸³ abound in this tūmān. Strong wines are brought down into it from Kāfiristān.

A strange thing is told there, one seeming impossible, but one told to us again and again. All through the hill-country above Multa-kundī, viz. in Kūnār, Nūr-gal, Bajaur, Sawād and thereabouts, it is commonly said that when a woman dies and has been laid on a bier, she, if she has not been an ill-doer, gives the bearers such a shake when they lift the bier by its four sides, that against their will and hindrance, her corpse falls to the ground; but, if she has done ill, no movement occurs. This was heard not only from Kūnārīs but, again and again, in Bajaur, Sawād and the whole hill-tract. Ḥaidar-‘alī Bajaurī, – a sult̤ān who governed Bajaur well, – when his mother died, did not weep, or betake himself to lamentation, or put on black, but said, “Go! lay her on the bier! if she move not, I will have her burned.”⁷⁸⁴ They laid her on the bier; the desired movement followed; when he heard that this was so, he put on black and betook himself to lamentation.

(Authors note to Multa-kundī.) As Multa-kundī is known the lower part of the tūmān of Kūnār-with-Nūr-gal; what is below (i. e. on the river) belongs to the valley of Nūr and to Atar.⁷⁸⁵

Another bulūk is Chaghān-sarāī,⁷⁸⁶ a single village with little land, in the mouth of Kāfiristān; its people, though Muṣalmān, mix with the Kāfirs and, consequently, follow their customs.⁷⁸⁷ A great torrent (the Kūnār) comes down to it from the north-east from behind Bajaur, and a smaller one, called Pīch, comes down out of Kāfiristān. Strong yellowish wines are had there, not in any way resembling those of the Nūr-valley, however. The village has no grapes or vineyards of its own; its wines are all brought from up the Kāfiristān-water and from Pīch-i-kāfiristānī.

The Pīch Kāfirs came to help the villagers when I took the place. Wine is so commonly used there that every Kāfir has his leathern wine-bag (khīg) at his neck, and drinks wine instead of water.⁷⁸⁸

Kāma, again, though not a separate district but dependent on Nīngnahār, is also called a bulūk.⁷⁸⁹

Nijr-aū⁷⁹⁰ is another tūmān. It lies north of Kābul, in the Kohistān, with mountains behind it inhabited solely by Kāfirs; it is a quite sequestered place. It grows grapes and fruits in abundance. Its people make much wine but, they boil it. They fatten many fowls in winter, are wine-bibbers, do not pray, have no scruples and are Kāfir-like.⁷⁹¹

In the Nijr-aū mountains is an abundance of archa, jīlghūza, bīlūt and khanjak.⁷⁹² The first-named three do not grow above Nigr-aū but they grow lower, and are amongst the trees of Hindūstān. Jīlghūza-wood is all the lamp the people have; it burns like a candle and is very remarkable. The flying-squirrel⁷⁹³ is found in these mountains, an animal larger than a bat and having a curtain (parda), like a bat’s wing, between its arms and legs. People often brought one in; it is said to fly, downward from one tree to another, as far as a giz flies;⁷⁹⁴ I myself have never seen one fly. Once we put one to a tree; it clambered up directly and got away, but, when people went after it, it spread its wings and came down, without hurt, as if it had flown. Another of the curiosities of the Nijr-aū mountains is the lūkha (var. lūja) bird, called also bū-qalamūn (chameleon) because, between head and tail, it has four or five changing colours, resplendent like a pigeon’s throat.⁷⁹⁵ It is about as large as the

kabg-i-darī and seems to be the kabg-i-darī of Hindūstān.⁷⁹⁶ People tell this wonderful thing about it: – When the birds, at the on-set of winter, descend to the hill-skirts, if they come over a vineyard, they can fly no further and are taken.⁷⁹⁷ There is a kind of rat in Nijr-aū, known as the musk-rat, which smells of musk; I however have never seen it.⁷⁹⁸

Panjhīr (Panj-sher) is another tūmān; it lies close to Kāfiristān, along the Panjhīr road, and is the thoroughfare of Kāfir highwaymen who also, being so near, take tax of it. They have gone through it, killing a mass of persons, and doing very evil deeds, since I came this last time and conquered Hindūstān (932 AH. -1526 AD.).⁷⁹⁹

Another is the tūmān of Ghūr-bund. In those countries they call a kūtal (koh?) a bund;⁸⁰⁰ they go towards Ghūr by this pass (kūtal); apparently it is for this reason that they have called (the tūmān?) Ghūr-bund. The Hazāra hold the heads of its valleys.⁸⁰¹ It has few villages and little revenue can be raised from it. There are said to be mines of silver and lapis lazuli in its mountains.

Again, there are the villages on the skirts of the (Hindū-kush) mountains,⁸⁰² with Mīta-kacha and Parwān at their head, and Dūr-nāma⁸⁰³ at their foot, 12 or 13 in all. They are fruit-bearing villages, and they grow cheering wines, those of Khwāja Khāwand Sa‘īd being reputed the strongest roundabouts. The villages all lie on the foot-hills; some pay taxes but not all are taxable because they lie so far back in the mountains.

Between the foot-hills and the Bārān-water are two detached stretches of level land, one known as Kurrat-tāziyān,⁸⁰⁴ the other as Dasht-i-shaikh (Shaikh’s-plain). As the green grass of the millet⁸⁰⁵ grows well there, they are the resort of Turks and (Mughūl) clans (aīmāq).

Tulips of many colours cover these foot-hills; I once counted them up; it came out at 32 or 33 different sorts. We named one the Rose-scented, because its perfume was a little like that of the red rose; it grows by itself on Shaikh’s-plain, here and nowhere else. The Hundred-leaved tulip is another; this grows, also by itself, at the outlet of the Ghūr-bund narrows, on the hill-skirt below Parwān. A low hill known as Khwāja Reg-i-rawān (Khwāja-of-the-running-sand), divides the afore-named two pieces of level land; it has, from top to foot, a strip of sand from which people say the sound of nagarets and tambours issues in the heats.⁸⁰⁶

Again, there are the villages depending on Kābul itself. South-west from the town are great snow mountains⁸⁰⁷ where snow falls on snow, and where few may be the years when, falling, it does not light on last year’s snow. It is fetched, 12 miles may-be, from these mountains, to cool the drinking water when ice-houses in Kābul are empty. Like the Bāmiān mountains, these are fastnesses. Out of them issue the Harmand (Halmand), Sind, Dūghāba of Qūndūz, and Balkh-āb,⁸⁰⁸ so that in a single day, a man might drink of the water of each of these four rivers.

It is on the skirt of one of these ranges (Pamghān) that most of the villages dependent on Kābul lie.⁸⁰⁹ Masses of grapes ripen in their vineyards and they grow every sort of fruit in abundance. No-one of them equals Istālīf or Astarghach; these must be the two which Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā used to call his Khurāsān and Samarkand. Pamghān is another of the best, not ranking in fruit and grapes with those two others, but beyond comparison with them in climate. The Pamghān mountains are a snowy range. Few villages match Istālīf, with vineyards and fine orchards on both sides of its great torrent, with waters needing no ice, cold and, mostly, pure. Of its Great garden Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā had taken forcible possession; I took it over, after paying its price to the owners. There is a pleasant halting-place outside it, under great planes, green, shady and beautiful. A one-mill stream, having trees on both banks, flows constantly through the middle of the garden; formerly its course was zig-zag and irregular; I had it made straight and orderly; so the place became very beautiful. Between the village and the valley-bottom, from 4 to 6 miles down the slope, is a spring, known as Khwāja Sih-yārān (Three-friends), round which three sorts of tree grow. A group of planes gives pleasant shade above it; holm-oak (quercus bīlūt) grows in masses on the slope at its sides, – these two oaklands (bīlūtistān) excepted, no holm-oak grows in the mountains of western Kābul, – and the Judas-tree (arghwān)⁸¹⁰ is much cultivated in front of it, that is towards the level ground, – cultivated there and nowhere else. People say the three different sorts of tree were a gift made by three saints,⁸¹¹ whence its name. I ordered that the spring should be enclosed in mortared stone-work, 10 by 10, and that a symmetrical, right-angled platform should be built on each of its sides, so as to overlook the whole field of Judas-trees. If, the world over, there is a place to match this when the arghwāns are in full bloom, I do not know it. The yellow arghwān grows plentifully there also, the red and the yellow flowering at the same time.⁸¹²

In order to bring water to a large round seat which I had built on the hillside and planted round with willows, I had a channel dug across the slope from a half-mill stream, constantly flowing in a valley to the south-west of Sih-yārān. The date of cutting this channel was found in jūī-khūsh (kindly channel).⁸¹³

Another of the tūmāns of Kābul is Luhūgur (mod. Logar). Its one large village is Chīrkh from which were his Reverence Maulānā Ya‘qūb and Mullā-zāda ‘Us̤mān.⁸¹⁴ Khwāja Aḥmad and Khwāja Yūnas were from Sajāwand, another of its villages. Chīrkh has many gardens, but there are none in any other village of Luhūgur. Its people are Aūghān-shāl, a term common in Kābul, seeming to be a mispronouncement of Aūghān-sha‘ār.⁸¹⁵

Again, there is the wilāyat, or, as some say, tūmān of Ghaznī, said to have been⁸¹⁶ the capital of Sabuk-tīgīn, Sl. Maḥmūd and their descendants. Many write it Ghaznīn. It is said also to have been the seat of government of Shihābu’d-dīn Ghūrī,⁸¹⁷ styled Mu‘iz̤z̤u’d-dīn in the T̤abaqāt-i-nāṣirī and also some of the histories of Hind.

Ghaznī is known also as Zābulistān; it belongs to the Third climate. Some hold that Qandahār is a part of it. It lies 14 yīghāch (south-) west of Kābul; those leaving it at dawn, may reach Kābul between the Two Prayers (i. e. in the afternoon); whereas the 13 yīghāch between Adīnapūr and Kābul can never be done in one day, because of the difficulties of the road.

Ghaznī has little cultivated land. Its torrent, a four-mill or five-mill stream may-be, makes the town habitable and fertilizes four or five villages; three or four others are cultivated from under-ground water-courses (kārez). Ghaznī grapes are better than those of Kābul; its melons are more abundant; its apples are very good, and are carried to Hindūstān. Agriculture is very laborious in Ghaznī because, whatever the quality of the soil, it must be newly top-dressed every year; it gives a better return, however, than Kābul. Ghaznī grows madder; the entire crop goes to Hindūstān and yields excellent profit to the growers. In the open-country of Ghaznī dwell Hazāra and Afghāns. Compared with Kābul, it is always a cheap place. Its people hold to the Ḥanafī faith, are good, orthodox Muṣalmāns, many keep a three months’ fast,⁸¹⁸ and their wives and children live modestly secluded.

One of the eminent men of Ghaznī was Mullā ‘Abdu’r-raḥmān, a learned man and always a learner (dars), a most orthodox, pious and virtuous person; he left this world the same year as Nāṣir Mīrzā (921 AH. -1515 AD.). Sl. Maḥmūd’s tomb is in the suburb called Rauẓa,⁸¹⁹ from which the best grapes come; there also are the tombs of his descendants, Sl. Mas‘ūd and Sl. Ibrāhīm. Ghaznī has many blessed tombs. The year⁸²⁰ I took Kābul and Ghaznī, over-ran Kohāt, the plain of Bannū and lands of the Afghāns, and went on to Ghaznī by way of Dūkī (Dūgī) and Āb-istāda, people told me there was a tomb, in a village of Ghaznī, which moved when a benediction on the Prophet was pronounced over it. We went to see it. In the end I discovered that the movement was a trick, presumably of the servants at the tomb, who had put a sort of platform above it which moved when pushed, so that, to those on it, the tomb seemed to move, just as the shore does to those passing in a boat. I ordered the scaffold destroyed and a dome built over the tomb; also I forbad the servants, with threats, ever to bring about the movement again.

Ghaznī is a very humble place; strange indeed it is that rulers in whose hands were Hindūstān and Khurāsānāt,⁸²¹ should have chosen it for their capital. In the Sult̤ān’s (Maḥmūd’s) time there may have been three or four dams in the country; one he made, some three yīghāch (18 m.?) up the Ghaznī-water to the north; it was about 40-50 qārī (yards) high and some 300 long; through it the stored waters were let out as required.⁸²² It was destroyed by ‘Alāu’u’d-dīn Jahān-soz Ghūrī when he conquered the country (550 AH. -1152 AD.), burned and ruined the tombs of several descendants of Sl. Maḥmūd, sacked and burned the town, in short, left undone no tittle of murder and rapine. Since that time, the Sult̤ān’s dam has lain in ruins, but, through God’s favour, there is hope that it may become of use again, by means of the money which was sent, in Khwāja Kalān’s hand, in the year Hindūstān was conquered (932 AH. -1526 AD.).⁸²³ The Sakhandam is another, 2 or 3 yīghāch (12-18 m.), may-be, on the east of the town; it has long been in ruins, indeed is past repair. There is a dam in working order at Sar-i-dih (Village-head).

In books it is written that there is in Ghaznī a spring such that, if dirt and foul matter be thrown into it, a tempest gets up instantly, with a blizzard of rain and wind. It has been seen said also in one of the histories that Sabuk-tīgīn, when besieged by the Rāī (Jāī-pāl) of Hind, ordered dirt and foulness to be thrown into the spring, by this aroused, in an instant, a tempest with blizzard of rain and snow, and, by this device, drove off his foe.⁸²⁴ Though we made many enquiries, no intimation of the spring’s existence was given us.

In these countries Ghaznī and Khwārizm are noted for cold, in the same way that Sult̤ānīā and Tabrīz are in the two ‘Irāqs and Aẕarbāījān.

Zurmut is another tūmān, some 12-13 yīghāch south of Kābul and 7-8 south-east of Ghaznī.⁸²⁵ Its dārogha’s head-quarters are in Gīrdīz; there most houses are three or four storeys high. It does not want for strength, and gave Nāṣir Mīrzā trouble when it went into hostility to him. Its people are Aūghān-shāl; they grow corn but have neither vineyards nor orchards. The tomb of Shaikh Muḥammad Muṣalmān is at a spring, high on the skirt of a mountain, known as Barakistān, in the south of the tūmān.

Farmūl is another tūmān,⁸²⁶ a humble place, growing not bad apples which are carried into Hindūstān. Of Farmūl were the Shaikh-zādas, descendants of Shaikh Muḥammad Muṣalmān, who were so much in favour during the Afghān period in Hindūstān.

Bangash is another tūmān.⁸²⁷ All round about it are Afghān highwaymen, such as the Khūgīānī, Khirilchī, Tūrī and Landar. Lying out-of-the-way, as it does, its people do not pay taxes willingly. There has been no time to bring it to obedience; greater tasks have fallen to me, – the conquests of Qandahār, Balkh, Badakhshān and Hindūstān! But, God willing! when I get the chance, I most assuredly will take order with those Bangash thieves.

One of the bulūks of Kābul is Ālā-sāī,⁸²⁸ 4 to 6 miles (2-3 shar‘ī) east of Nijr-aū. The direct road into it from Nijr-aū leads, at a place called Kūra, through the quite small pass which in that locality separates the hot and cold climates. Through this pass the birds migrate at the change of the seasons, and at those times many are taken by the people of Pīchghān, one of the dependencies of Nijr-aū, in the following manner: – From distance to distance near the mouth of the pass, they make hiding-places for the bird-catchers. They fasten one corner of a net five or six yards away, and weight the lower side to the ground with stones. Along the other side of the net, for half its width, they fasten a stick some 3 to 4 yards long. The hidden bird-catcher holds this stick and by it, when the birds approach, lifts up the net to its full height. The birds then go into the net of themselves. Sometimes so many are taken by this contrivance that there is not time to cut their throats.⁸²⁹

Though the Ālā-sāī pomegranates are not first-rate, they have local reputation because none are better there-abouts; they are carried into Hindūstān. Grapes also do not grow badly, and the wines of Ālā-sāī are better and stronger than those of Nijr-aū.

Badr-aū (Tag-aū) is another bulūk; it runs with Ālā-sāī, grows no fruit, and for cultivators has corn-growing Kāfirs.⁸³⁰

(f. Tribesmen of Kābul.)

Just as Turks and (Mughūl) clans (aīmāq) dwell in the open country of Khurāsān and Samarkand, so in Kābul do the Hazāra and Afghāns. Of the Hazāra, the most widely-scattered are the Sult̤ān-mas‘ūdi Hazāra, of Afghāns, the Mahmand.

(g. Revenue of Kābul.)

The revenues of Kābul, whether from the cultivated lands or from tolls (tamghā) or from dwellers in the open country, amount to 8 laks of shāhrukhīs.⁸³¹

(h. The mountain-tracts of Kābul.)

Where the mountains of Andar-āb, Khwāst,⁸³² and the Badakh-shānāt have conifers (archa), many springs and gentle slopes, those of eastern Kābul have grass (aūt), grass like a beautiful floor, on hill, slope and dale. For the most part it is būta-kāh grass (aūt), very suitable for horses. In the Andijān country they talk of būta-kāh, but why they do so was not known (to me?); in Kābul it was heard-say to be because the grass comes up in tufts (būta, būta).⁸³³ The alps of these mountains are like those of Ḥiṣār, Khutlān, Farghāna, Samarkand and Mughūlistān, – all these being alike in mountain and alp, though the alps of Farghāna and Mughūlistān are beyond comparison with the rest.

From all these the mountains of Nijr-aū, the Lamghānāt and Sawād differ in having masses of cypresses,⁸³⁴ holm-oak, olive and mastic (khanjak); their grass also is different, – it is dense, it is tall, it is good neither for horse nor sheep. Although these mountains are not so high as those already described, indeed they look to be low, none-the-less, they are strongholds; what to the eye is even slope, really is hard rock on which it is impossible to ride. Many of the beasts and birds of Hindūstān are found amongst them, such as the parrot, mīna, peacock and lūja (lūkha), the ape, nīl-gāu and hog-deer (kūta-pāī);⁸³⁵ some found there are not found even in Hindūstān.

The mountains to the west of Kābul are also all of one sort, those of the Zindān-valley, the Ṣūf-valley, Garzawān and Gharjistān (Gharchastān).⁸³⁶ Their meadows are mostly in the dales; they have not the same sweep of grass on slope and top as some of those described have; nor have they masses of trees; they have, however, grass suiting horses. On their flat tops, where all the crops are grown, there is ground where a horse can gallop. They have masses of kīyik.⁸³⁷ Their valley-bottoms are strongholds, mostly precipitous and inaccessible from above. It is remarkable that, whereas other mountains have their fastnesses in their high places, these have theirs below.

Of one sort again are the mountains of Ghūr, Karnūd (var. Kuzūd) and Hazāra; their meadows are in their dales; their trees are few, not even the archa being there;⁸³⁸ their grass is fit for horses and for the masses of sheep they keep. They differ from those last described in this, their strong places are not below.

The mountains (south-east of Kābul) of Khwāja Ismā‘īl, Dasht, Dūgī (Dūkī)⁸³⁹ and Afghānistān are all alike; all low, scant of vegetation, short of water, treeless, ugly and good-for-nothing. Their people take after them, just as has been said, Tīng būlmā-ghūncha tūsh būlmās.⁸⁴⁰ Likely enough the world has few mountains so useless and disgusting.

(h. Fire-wood of Kabul.)

The snow-fall being so heavy in Kābul, it is fortunate that excellent fire-wood is had near by. Given one day to fetch it, wood can be had of the khanjak (mastic), bīlūt (holm-oak), bādāmcha (small-almond) and qarqand.⁸⁴¹ Of these khanjak wood is the best; it burns with flame and nice smell, makes plenty of hot ashes and does well even if sappy. Holm-oak is also first-rate fire-wood, blazing less than mastic but, like it, making a hot fire with plenty of hot ashes, and nice smell. It has the peculiarity in burning that when its leafy branches are set alight, they fire up with amazing sound, blazing and crackling from bottom to top. It is good fun to burn it. The wood of the small-almond is the most plentiful and commonly-used, but it does not make a lasting fire. The qarqand is quite a low shrub, thorny, and burning sappy or dry; it is the fuel of the Ghaznī people.

(i. Fauna of Kābul.)

The cultivated lands of Kābul lie between mountains which are like great dams⁸⁴² to the flat valley-bottoms in which most villages and peopled places are. On these mountains kīyik and āhū⁸⁴³ are scarce. Across them, between its summer and winter quarters, the dun sheep,⁸⁴⁴ the arqārghalcha, have their regular track,⁸⁴⁵ to which braves go out with dogs and birds⁸⁴⁶ to take them. Towards Khūrd-kābul and the Sūrkh-rūd there is wild-ass, but there are no white kīyik at all; Ghaznī has both and in few other places are white kīyik found in such good condition.⁸⁴⁷

In the heats the fowling-grounds of Kābul are crowded. The birds take their way along the Bārān-water. For why? It is because the river has mountains along it, east and west, and a great Hindū-kush pass in a line with it, by which the birds must cross since there is no other near.⁸⁴⁸ They cannot cross when the north wind blows, or if there is even a little cloud on Hindū-kush; at such times they alight on the level lands of the Bārān-water and are taken in great numbers by the local people. Towards the end of winter, dense flocks of mallards (aūrdūq) reach the banks of the Bārān in very good condition. Follow these the cranes and herons,⁸⁴⁹ great birds, in large flocks and countless numbers.

(j. Bird-catching.)

Along the Bārān people take masses of cranes (tūrna) with the cord; masses of aūqār, qarqara and qūt̤ān also.⁸⁵⁰ This method of bird-catching is unique. They twist a cord as long as the arrow’s⁸⁵¹ flight, tie the arrow at one end and a bīldūrga⁸⁵² at the other, and wind it up, from the arrow-end, on a piece of wood, span-long and wrist-thick, right up to the bīldūrga. They then pull out the piece of wood, leaving just the hole it was in. The bīldūrga being held fast in the hand, the arrow is shot off⁸⁵³ towards the coming flock. If the cord twists round a neck or wing, it brings the bird down. On the Bārān everyone takes birds in this way; it is difficult; it must be done on rainy nights, because on such nights the birds do not alight, but fly continually and fly low till dawn, in fear of ravening beasts of prey. Through the night the flowing river is their road, its moving water showing through the dark; then it is, while they come and go, up and down the river, that the cord is shot. One night I shot it; it broke in drawing in; both bird and cord were brought in to me next day. By this device Bārān people catch the many herons from which they take the turban-aigrettes sent from Kābul for sale in Khurāsān.

Of bird-catchers there is also the band of slave-fowlers, two or three hundred households, whom some descendant of Tīmūr Beg made migrate from near Multān to the Bārān.⁸⁵⁴ Bird-catching is their trade; they dig tanks, set decoy-birds⁸⁵⁵ on them, put a net over the middle, and in this way take all sorts of birds. Not fowlers only catch birds, but every dweller on the Bārān does it, whether by shooting the cord, setting the springe, or in various other ways.

(k. Fishing.)

The fish of the Bārān migrate at the same seasons as birds. At those times many are netted, and many are taken on wattles (chīgh) fixed in the water. In autumn when the plant known as wild-ass-tail⁸⁵⁶ has come to maturity, flowered and seeded, people take 10-20 loads (of seed?) and 20-30 of green branches (gūk-shībāk) to some head of water, break it up small and cast it in. Then going into the water, they can at once pick up drugged fish. At some convenient place lower down, in a hole below a fall, they will have fixed before-hand a wattle of finger-thick willow-withes, making it firm by piling stones on its sides. The water goes rushing and dashing through the wattle, but leaves on it any fish that may have come floating down. This way of catching fish is practised in Gul-bahār, Parwān and Istālīf.

Fish are had in winter in the Lamghānāt by this curious device: – People dig a pit to the depth of a house, in the bed of a stream, below a fall, line it with stones like a cooking-place, and build up stones round it above, leaving one opening only, under water. Except by this one opening, the fish have no inlet or outlet, but the water finds its way through the stones. This makes a sort of fish-pond from which, when wanted in winter, fish can be taken, 30-40 together. Except at the opening, left where convenient, the sides of the fish-pond are made fast with rice-straw, kept in place by stones. A piece of wicker-work is pulled into the said opening by its edges, gathered together, and into this a second piece, (a tube,) is inserted, fitting it at the mouth but reaching half-way into it only.⁸⁵⁷ The fish go through the smaller piece into the larger one, out from which they cannot get. The second narrows towards its inner mouth, its pointed ends being drawn so close that the fish, once entered, cannot turn, but must go on, one by one, into the larger piece. Out of that they cannot return because of the pointed ends of the inner, narrow mouth. The wicker-work fixed and the rice-straw making the pond fast, whatever fish are inside can be taken out;⁸⁵⁸ any also which, trying to escape may have gone into the wicker-work, are taken in it, because they have no way out. This method of catching fish we have seen nowhere else.⁸⁵⁹

HISTORICAL NARRATIVE RESUMED.⁸⁶⁰

(a. Departure of Muqīm and allotment of lands.)

A few days after the taking of Kābul, Muqīm asked leave to set off for Qandahār. As he had come out of the town on terms and conditions, he was allowed to go to his father (Ẕu’n-nūn) and his elder brother (Shāh Beg), with all his various people, his goods and his valuables, safe and sound.

Directly he had gone, the Kābul-country was shared out to the Mīrzās and the guest-begs.⁸⁶¹ To Jahāngīr Mīrzā was given Ghaznī with its dependencies and appurtenancies; to Nāṣir Mīrzā, the Nīngnahār tūmān, Mandrāwar, Nūr-valley, Kūnār, Nūr-gal (Rock-village?) and Chīghān-sarāī. To some of the begs who had been with us in the guerilla-times and had come to Kābul with us, were given villages, fief-fashion.⁸⁶² Wilāyat itself was not given at all.⁸⁶³ It was not only then that I looked with more favour on guest-begs and stranger-begs than I did on old servants and Andijānīs; this I have always done whenever the Most High God has shown me His favour; yet it is remarkable that, spite of this, people have blamed me constantly as though I had favoured none but old servants and Andijānīs. There is a proverb, (Turkī) “What will a foe not say? what enters not into dream?” and (Persian) “A town-gate can be shut, a foe’s mouth never.”

(b. A levy in grain.)

Many clans and hordes had come from Samarkand, Ḥiṣār and Qūndūz into the Kābul-country. Kābul is a small country; it is also of the sword, not of the pen;⁸⁶⁴ to take in money from it for all these tribesmen was impossible. It therefore seemed advisable to take in grain, provision for the families of these clans so that their men could ride on forays with the army. Accordingly it was decided to levy 30,000 ass-loads⁸⁶⁵ of grain on Kābul, Ghaznī and their dependencies; we knew nothing at that time about the harvests and incomings; the impost was excessive, and under it the country suffered very grievously.

In those days I devised the Bāburī script.⁸⁶⁶

(c. Foray on the Hazāra.)

A large tribute in horses and sheep had been laid on the Sult̤ān Mas‘ūdī Hazāras;⁸⁶⁷ word came a few days after collectors had gone to receive it, that the Hazāras were refractory and would not give their goods. As these same tribesmen had before that come down on the Ghaznī and Gīrdīz roads, we got to horse, meaning to take them by surprise. Riding by the Maidān-road, we crossed the Nirkh-pass⁸⁶⁸ by night and at the Morning-prayer fell upon them near Jāl-tū (var. Chā-tū). The incursion was not what was wished.⁸⁶⁹ We came back by the Tunnel-rock (Sang-i-sūrākh); Jahāngīr Mīrzā (there?) took leave for Ghaznī. On our reaching Kābul, Yār-i-ḥusain, son of Daryā Khān, coming in from Bhīra, waited on me.⁸⁷⁰

(d. Bābur’s first start for Hindūstān.)

When, a few days later, the army had been mustered, persons acquainted with the country were summoned and questioned about its every side and quarter. Some advised a march to the Plain (Dasht);⁸⁷¹ some approved of Bangash; some wished to go into Hindūstān. The discussion found settlement in a move on Hindūstān.

It was in the month of Sha‘bān (910 AH. – Jan. 1505 AD.), the Sun being in Aquarius, that we rode out of Kābul for Hindūstān. We took the road by Bādām-chashma and Jagdālīk and reached Adīnapūr in six marches. Till that time I had never seen a hot country or the Hindūstān border-land. In Nīngnahār⁸⁷² another world came to view, – other grasses, other trees, other animals, other birds, and other manners and customs of clan and horde. We were amazed, and truly there was ground for amaze.

Nāṣir Mīrzā, who had gone earlier to his district, waited on me in Adīnapūr. We made some delay in Adīnapūr in order to let the men from behind join us, also a contingent from the clans which had come with us into Kābul and were wintering in the Lamghānāt.⁸⁷³ All having joined us, we marched to below Jūī-shāhī and dismounted at Qūsh-guṃbaz.⁸⁷⁴ There Nāṣir Mīrzā asked for leave to stay behind, saying he would follow in a few days after making some sort of provision for his dependants and followers. Marching on from Qūsh-guṃbaz, when we dismounted at Hot-spring (Garm-chashma), a head-man of the Gāgīānī was brought in, a Fajjī⁸⁷⁵ presumably with his caravan. We took him with us to point out the roads. Crossing Khaibar in a march or two, we dismounted at Jām.⁸⁷⁶

Tales had been told us about Gūr-khattrī;⁸⁷⁷ it was said to be a holy place of the Jogīs and Hindūs who come from long distances to shave their heads and beards there. I rode out at once from Jām to visit Bīgrām,⁸⁷⁸ saw its great tree,⁸⁷⁹ and all the country round, but, much as we enquired about Gūr-khattrī, our guide, one Malik Bū-sa‘īd Kamarī,⁸⁸⁰ would say nothing about it. When we were almost back in camp, however, he told Khwāja Muḥammad-amīn that it was in Bīgrām and that he had said nothing about it because of its confined cells and narrow passages. The Khwāja, having there and then abused him, repeated to us what he had said, but we could not go back because the road was long and the day far spent.

(e. Move against Kohāt.)

Whether to cross the water of Sind, or where else to go, was discussed in that camp.⁸⁸¹ Bāqī Chaghānīānī represented that it seemed we might go, without crossing the river and with one night’s halt, to a place called Kohāt where were many rich tribesmen; moreover he brought Kābulīs forward who represented the matter just as he had done. We had never heard of the place, but, as he, my man in great authority, saw it good to go to Kohāt and had brought forward support of his recommendation, – this being so! we broke up our plan of crossing the Sind-water into Hindūstān, marched from Jām, forded the Bāra-water, and dismounted not far from the pass (dābān) through the Muḥammad-mountain (fajj). At the time the Gāgīānī Afghāns were located in Parashawār but, in dread of our army, had drawn off to the skirt-hills. One of their headmen, coming into this camp, did me obeisance; we took him, as well as the Fajjī, with us, so that, between them, they might point out the roads. We left that camp at midnight, crossed Muḥammad-fajj at day-rise⁸⁸² and by breakfast-time descended on Kohāt. Much cattle and buffalo fell to our men; many Afghāns were taken but I had them all collected and set them free. In the Kohāt houses corn was found without limit. Our foragers raided as far as the Sind-river (daryā), rejoining us after one night’s halt. As what Bāqī Chaghānīānī had led us to expect did not come to hand, he grew rather ashamed of his scheme.

When our foragers were back and after two nights in Kohāt, we took counsel together as to what would be our next good move, and we decided to over-run the Afghāns of Bangash and the Bannū neighbourhood, then to go back to Kābul, either through Naghr (Bāghzān?), or by the Farmūl-road (Tochī-valley?).

In Kohāt, Daryā Khān’s son, Yār-i-ḥusain, who had waited on me in Kābul made petition, saying, “If royal orders were given me for the Dilazāk,⁸⁸³ the Yūsuf-zāī, and the Gāgīānī, these would not go far from my orders if I called up the Pādshāh’s swords on the other side of the water of Sind.”⁸⁸⁴ The farmān he petitioned for being given, he was allowed to go from Kohāt.

(f. March to Thāl.)

Marching out of Kohāt, we took the Hangū-road for Bangash. Between Kohāt and Hangū that road runs through a valley shut in on either hand by the mountains. When we entered this valley, the Afghāns of Kohāt and thereabouts who were gathered on both hill-skirts, raised their war-cry with great clamour. Our then guide, Malik Bū-sa‘īd Kamarī was well-acquainted with the Afghān locations; he represented that further on there was a detached hill on our right, where, if the Afghāns came down to it from the hill-skirt, we might surround and take them. God brought it right! The Afghāns, on reaching the place, did come down. We ordered one party of braves to seize the neck of land between that hill and the mountains, others to move along its sides, so that under attack made from all sides at once, the Afghāns might be made to reach their doom. Against the allround assault, they could not even fight; a hundred or two were taken, some were brought in alive but of most, the heads only were brought. We had been told that when Afghāns are powerless to resist, they go before their foe with grass between their teeth, this being as much as to say, “I am your cow.”⁸⁸⁵ Here we saw this custom; Afghāns unable to make resistance, came before us with grass between their teeth. Those our men had brought in as prisoners were ordered to be beheaded and a pillar of their heads was set up in our camp.⁸⁸⁶

Next day we marched forward and dismounted at Hangū, where local Afghāns had made a sangur on a hill. I first heard the word sangur after coming to Kābul where people describe fortifying themselves on a hill as making a sangur. Our men went straight up, broke into it and cut off a hundred or two of insolent Afghān heads. There also a pillar of heads was set up.

From Hangū we marched, with one night’s halt, to Tīl (Thāl),⁸⁸⁷ below Bangash; there also our men went out and raided the Afghāns near-by; some of them however turned back rather lightly from a sangur.⁸⁸⁸

(g. Across country into Bannū.)

On leaving Tīl (Thāl) we went, without a road, right down a steep descent, on through out-of-the-way narrows, halted one night, and next day came down into Bannū,⁸⁸⁹ man, horse and camel all worn out with fatigue and with most of the booty in cattle left on the way. The frequented road must have been a few miles to our right; the one we came by did not seem a riding-road at all; it was understood to be called the Gosfandliyār (Sheep-road), —liyār being Afghānī for a road, – because sometimes shepherds and herdsmen take their flocks and herds by it through those narrows. Most of our men regarded our being brought down by that left-hand road as an ill-design of Malik Bū-sa‘īd Kamarī.⁸⁹⁰

(h. Bannū and the ‘Īsa-khail country.)

The Bannū lands lie, a dead level, immediately outside the Bangash and Naghr hills, these being to their north. The Bangash torrent (the Kūrām) comes down into Bannū and fertilizes its lands. South(-east) of them are Chaupāra and the water of Sind; to their east is Dīn-kot; (south-)west is the Plain (Dasht), known also as Bāzār and Tāq.⁸⁹¹ The Bannū lands are cultivated by the Kurānī, Kīwī, Sūr, ‘Īsa-khail and Nīā-zāī of the Afghān tribesmen.

After dismounting in Bannū, we heard that the tribesmen in the Plain (Dasht) were for resisting and were entrenching themselves on a hill to the north. A force headed by Jahāngīr Mīrzā, went against what seemed to be the Kīwī sangur, took it at once, made general slaughter, cut off and brought in many heads. Much white cloth fell into (their) hands. In Bannū also a pillar of heads was set up. After the sangur had been taken, the Kīwī head-man, Shādī Khān, came to my presence, with grass between his teeth, and did me obeisance. I pardoned all the prisoners.

After we had over-run Kohāt, it had been decided that Bangash and Bannū should be over-run, and return to Kābul made through Naghr or through Farmūl. But when Bannū had been over-run, persons knowing the country represented that the Plain was close by, with its good roads and many people; so it was settled to over-run the Plain and to return to Kābul afterwards by way of Farmūl.⁸⁹²

Marching next day, we dismounted at an ‘Īsa-khail village on that same water (the Kūrām) but, as the villagers had gone into the Chaupāra hills on hearing of us, we left it and dismounted on the skirt of Chaupāra. Our foragers went from there into the hills, destroyed the ‘Īsa-khail sangur and came back with sheep, herds and cloth. That night the ‘Īsa-khail made an attack on us but, as good watch was kept all through these operations, they could do nothing. So cautious were we that at night our right and left, centre and van were just in the way they had dismounted, each according to its place in battle, each prepared for its own post, with men on foot all round the camp, at an arrow’s distance from the tents. Every night the army was posted in this way and every night three or four of my household made the rounds with torches, each in his turn. I for my part made the round once each night. Those not at their posts had their noses slit and were led round through the army. Jahāngīr Mīrzā was the right wing, with Bāqī Chaghānīānī, Sherīm T̤aghāī, Sayyid Ḥusain Akbar, and other begs. Mīrzā Khān was the left wing, with ‘Abdu’r-razzāq Mīrzā, Qāsīm Beg and other begs. In the centre there were no great begs, all were household-begs. Sayyid Qāsim Lord-of-the-gate, was the van, with Bābā Aūghūlī, Allāh-bīrdī (var. Allāh-qulī Purān), and some other begs. The army was in six divisions, each of which had its day and night on guard.

Marching from that hill-skirt, our faces set west, we dismounted on a waterless plain (qūl) between Bannū and the Plain. The soldiers got water here for themselves, their herds and so on, by digging down, from one to one-and-a-half yards, into the dry water-course, when water came. Not here only did this happen for all the rivers of Hindūstān have the peculiarity that water is safe to be found by digging down from one to one-and-a-half yards in their beds. It is a wonderful provision of God that where, except for the great rivers, there are no running-waters,⁸⁹³ water should be so placed within reach in dry water-courses.

We left that dry channel next morning. Some of our men, riding light, reached villages of the Plain in the afternoon, raided a few, and brought back flocks, cloth and horses bred for trade.⁸⁹⁴ Pack-animals and camels and also the braves we had outdistanced, kept coming into camp all through that night till dawn and on till that morrow’s noon. During our stay there, the foragers brought in from villages in the Plain, masses of sheep and cattle, and, from Afghān traders met on the roads, white cloths, aromatic roots, sugars, tīpūchāqs, and horses bred for trade. Hindī (var. Mindī) Mughūl unhorsed Khwāja Khiẓr Lūhānī, a well-known and respected Afghān merchant, cutting off and bringing in his head. Once when Sherīm T̤aghāī went in the rear of the foragers, an Afghān faced him on the road and struck off his index-finger.

(i. Return made for Kābul.)

Two roads were heard of as leading from where we were to Ghaznī; one was the Tunnel-rock (Sang-i-sūrākh) road, passing Birk (Barak) and going on to Farmūl; the other was one along the Gūmāl, which also comes out at Farmūl but without touching Birk (Barak).⁸⁹⁵ As during our stay in the Plain rain had fallen incessantly, the Gūmāl was so swollen that it would have been difficult to cross at the ford we came to; moreover persons well-acquainted with the roads, represented that going by the Gūmāl road, this torrent must be crossed several times, that this was always difficult when the waters were so high and that there was always uncertainty on the Gūmāl road. Nothing was settled then as to which of these two roads to take; I expected it to be settled next day when, after the drum of departure had sounded, we talked it over as we went.⁸⁹⁶ It was the ‘Īd-i-fitr (March 7th 1505 AD.); while I was engaged in the ablutions due for the breaking of the fast, Jahāngīr Mīrzā and the begs discussed the question of the roads. Some-one said that if we were to turn the bill⁸⁹⁷ of the Mehtar Sulaimān range, this lying between the Plain and the Hill-country (desht u dūkī),⁸⁹⁸ we should get a level road though it might make the difference of a few marches. For this they decided and moved off; before my ablutions were finished the whole army had taken the road and most of it was across the Gūmāl. Not a man of us had ever seen the road; no-one knew whether it was long or short; we started off just on a rumoured word!

The Prayer of the ‘Id was made on the bank of the Gūmāl. That year New-year’s Day⁸⁹⁹ fell close to the ‘Id-i-fitr, there being only a few days between; on their approximation I composed the following (Turkī) ode: —

Glad is the Bairām-moon for him who sees both the face of the Moon and the Moon-face of his friend;
Sad is the Bairām-moon for me, far away from thy face and from thee.⁹⁰⁰

O Bābur! dream of your luck when your Feast is the meeting, your New-year the face;
For better than that could not be with a hundred New-years and Bairāms.

After crossing the Gūmāl torrent, we took our way along the skirt of the hills, our faces set south. A mile or two further on, some death-devoted Afghāns shewed themselves on the lower edge of the hill-slope. Loose rein, off we went for them; most of them fled but some made foolish stand on rocky-piles⁹⁰¹ of the foot-hills. One took post on a single rock seeming to have a precipice on the further side of it, so that he had not even a way of escape. Sl. Qulī Chūnāq (One-eared), all in his mail as he was, got up, slashed at, and took him. This was one of Sl. Qulī’s deeds done under my own eyes, which led to his favour and promotion.⁹⁰² At another pile of rock, when Qūtlūq-qadam exchanged blows with an Afghān, they grappled and came down together, a straight fall of 10 to 12 yards; in the end Qūtlūq-qadam cut off and brought in his man’s head. Kūpūk Beg got hand-on-collar with an Afghān at another hill; both rolled down to the bottom; that head also was brought in. All Afghāns taken prisoner were set free.

Marching south through the Plain, and closely skirting Mehtar Sulaimān, we came, with three nights’ halt, to a small township, called Bīlah, on the Sind-water and dependent on Multān.⁹⁰³ The villagers crossed the water, mostly taking to their boats, but some flung themselves in to cross. Some were seen standing on an island in front of Bīlah. Most of our men, man and horse in mail, plunged in and crossed to the island; some were carried down, one being Qul-i-arūk (thin slave), one of my servants, another the head tent-pitcher, another Jahāngīr Mīrzā’s servant, Qāītmās Turkmān.⁹⁰⁴ Cloth and things of the baggage (partaldīk nīma) fell to our men. The villagers all crossed by boat to the further side of the river; once there, some of them, trusting to the broad water, began to make play with their swords. Qul-i-bāyazīd, the taster, one of our men who had crossed to the island, stripped himself and his horse and, right in front of them, plunged by himself into the river. The water on that side of the island may have been twice or thrice as wide as on ours. He swum his horse straight for them till, an arrow’s-flight away, he came to a shallow where his weight must have been up-borne, the water being as high as the saddle-flap. There he stayed for as long as milk takes to boil; no-one supported him from behind; he had not a chance of support. He made a dash at them; they shot a few arrows at him but, this not checking him, they took to flight. To swim such a river as the Sind, alone, bare on a bare-backed horse, no-one behind him, and to chase off a foe and occupy his ground, was a mightily bold deed! He having driven the enemy off, other soldiers went over who returned with cloth and droves of various sorts. Qul-i-bāyazīd had already his place in my favour and kindness on account of his good service, and of courage several times shewn; from the cook’s office I had raised him to the royal taster’s; this time, as will be told, I took up a position full of bounty, favour and promotion, – in truth he was worthy of honour and advancement.

Two other marches were made down the Sind-water. Our men, by perpetually gallopping off on raids, had knocked up their horses; usually what they took, cattle mostly, was not worth the gallop; sometimes indeed in the Plain there had been sheep, sometimes one sort of cloth or other, but, the Plain left behind, nothing was had but cattle. A mere servant would bring in 3 or 400 head during our marches along the Sind-water, but every march many more would be left on the road than they brought in.

(j. The westward march.)

Having made three more marches⁹⁰⁵ close along the Sind, we left it when we came opposite Pīr Kānū’s tomb.⁹⁰⁶ Going to the tomb, we there dismounted. Some of our soldiers having injured several of those in attendance on it, I had them cut to pieces. It is a tomb on the skirt of one of the Mehtar Sulaimān mountains and held in much honour in Hindūstān.

Marching on from Pīr Kānū, we dismounted in the (Pawat) pass; next again in the bed of a torrent in Dūkī.⁹⁰⁷ After we left this camp there were brought in as many as 20 to 30 followers of a retainer of Shāh Beg, Fāẓil Kūkūldāsh, the dārogha of Sīwī. They had been sent to reconnoitre us but, as at that time, we were not on bad terms with Shāh Beg, we let them go, with horse and arms. After one night’s halt, we reached Chūtīālī, a village of Dūkī.

Although our men had constantly gallopped off to raid, both before we reached the Sind-water and all along its bank, they had not left horses behind, because there had been plenty of green food and corn. When, however, we left the river and set our faces for Pīr Kānū, not even green food was to be had; a little land under green crop might be found every two or three marches, but of horse-corn, none. So, beyond the camps mentioned, there began the leaving of horses behind. After passing Chūtīālī, my own felt-tent⁹⁰⁸ had to be left from want of baggage-beasts. One night at that time, it rained so much, that water stood knee-deep in my tent (chādār); I watched the night out till dawn, uncomfortably sitting on a pile of blankets.

(k. Bāqī Chaghānīānī’s treachery.)

A few marches further on came Jahāngīr Mīrzā, saying, “I have a private word for you.” When we were in private, he said, “Bāqī Chaghānīānī came and said to me, ‘You make the Pādshāh cross the water of Sind with 7, 8, 10 persons, then make yourself Pādshāh.’” Said I, “What others are heard of as consulting with him?” Said he, “It was but a moment ago Bāqī Beg spoke to me; I know no more.” Said I, “Find out who the others are; likely enough Sayyid Ḥusain Akbar and Sl. ‘Alī the page are in it, as well as Khusrau Shāh’s begs and braves.” Here the Mīrzā really behaved very well and like a blood-relation; what he now did was the counterpart of what I had done in Kāhmard,⁹⁰⁹ in this same ill-fated mannikin’s other scheme of treachery.⁹¹⁰

On dismounting after the next march, I made Jahāngīr Mīrzā lead a body of well-mounted men to raid the Aūghāns (Afghāns) of that neighbourhood.

Many men’s horses were now left behind in each camping-ground, the day coming when as many as 2 or 300 were left. Braves of the first rank went on foot; Sayyid Maḥmūd Aūghlāqchī, one of the best of the household-braves, left his horses behind and walked. In this state as to horses we went all the rest of the way to Ghaznī.

Three or four marches further on, Jahāngīr Mīrzā plundered some Afghāns and brought in a few sheep.

(l. The Āb-i-istāda.)

When, with a few more marches, we reached the Standing-water (Āb-i-istāda) a wonderfully large sheet of water presented itself to view; the level lands on its further side could not be seen at all; its water seemed to join the sky; the higher land and the mountains of that further side looked to hang between Heaven and Earth, as in a mirage. The waters there gathered are said to be those of the spring-rain floods of the Kattawāz-plain, the Zurmut-valley, and the Qarā-bāgh meadow of the Ghaznī-torrent, – floods of the spring-rains, and the over-plus⁹¹¹ of the summer-rise of streams.

When within two miles of the Āb-i-istāda, we saw a wonderful thing, – something as red as the rose of the dawn kept shewing and vanishing between the sky and the water. It kept coming and going. When we got quite close we learned that what seemed the cause were flocks of geese,⁹¹² not 10,000, not 20,000 in a flock, but geese innumerable which, when the mass of birds flapped their wings in flight, sometimes shewed red feathers, sometimes not. Not only was this bird there in countless numbers, but birds of every sort. Eggs lay in masses on the shore. When two Afghāns, come there to collect eggs, saw us, they went into the water half a kuroh (a mile). Some of our men following, brought them back. As far as they went the water was of one depth, up to a horse’s belly; it seemed not to lie in a hollow, the country being flat.

We dismounted at the torrent coming down to the Āb-i-istāda from the plain of Kattawāz. The several other times we have passed it, we have found a dry channel with no water whatever,⁹¹³ but this time, there was so much water, from the spring-rains, that no ford could be found. The water was not very broad but very deep. Horses and camels were made to swim it; some of the baggage was hauled over with ropes. Having got across, we went on through Old Nānī and Sar-i-dih to Ghaznī where for a few days Jahāngīr Mīrzā was our host, setting food before us and offering his tribute.

(m. Return to Kābul.)

That year most waters came down in flood. No ford was found through the water of Dih-i-yaq‘ūb.⁹¹⁴ For this reason we went straight on to Kamarī, through the Sajāwand-pass. At Kamarī I had a boat fashioned in a pool, brought and set on the Dih-i-yaq‘ūb-water in front of Kamarī. In this all our people were put over.

We reached Kābul in the month of Ẕū’l-ḥijja (May 1505 AD.).⁹¹⁵ A few days earlier Sayyid Yūsuf Aūghlāqchī had gone to God’s mercy through the pains of colic.

(n. Misconduct of Nāṣīr Mīrzā.)

It has been mentioned that at Qūsh-guṃbaz, Nāṣir Mīrzā asked leave to stay behind, saying that he would follow in a few days after taking something from his district for his retainers and followers.⁹¹⁶ But having left us, he sent a force against the people of Nūr-valley, they having done something a little refractory. The difficulty of moving in that valley owing to the strong position of its fort and the rice-cultivation of its lands, has already been described.⁹¹⁷ The Mīrzā’s commander, Faẓlī, in ground so impracticable and in that one-road tract, instead of safe-guarding his men, scattered them to forage. Out came the valesmen, drove the foragers off, made it impossible to the rest to keep their ground, killed some, captured a mass of others and of horses, – precisely what would happen to any army chancing to be under such a person as Faẓlī! Whether because of this affair, or whether from want of heart, the Mīrzā did not follow us at all; he stayed behind.

Moreover Ayūb’s sons, Yūsuf and Bahlūl (Begchīk), more seditious, silly and arrogant persons than whom there may not exist, – to whom I had given, to Yūsuf Alangār, to Bahlūl ‘Alī-shang, they like Nāṣir Mīrzā, were to have taken something from their districts and to have come on with him, but, he not coming, neither did they. All that winter they were the companions of his cups and social pleasures. They also over-ran the Tarkalānī Afghāns in it.⁹¹⁸ With the on-coming heats, the Mīrzā made march off the families of the clans, outside-tribes and hordes who had wintered in Nīngnahār and the Lamghānāt, driving them like sheep before him, with all their goods, as far as the Bārān-water.⁹¹⁹

(o. Affairs of Badakhshān.)

While Nāṣir Mīrzā was in camp on the Bārān-water, he heard that the Badakhshīs were united against the Aūzbegs and had killed some of them.

Here are the particulars: – When Shaibāq Khān had given Qūndūz to Qaṃbar Bī and gone himself to Khwārizm⁹²⁰; Qaṃbar Bī, in order to conciliate the Badakhshīs, sent them a son of Muḥammad-i-makhdūmī, Maḥmūd by name, but Mubārak Shāh, – whose ancestors are heard of as begs of the Badakhshān Shāhs, – having uplifted his own head, and cut off Maḥmūd’s and those of some Aūzbegs, made himself fast in the fort once known as Shāf-tiwār but re-named by him Qila‘-i-z̤afar. Moreover, in Rustāq Muḥammad qūrchī, an armourer of Khusrau Shāh, then occupying Khamalangān, slew Shaibāq Khān’s ṣadr and some Aūzbegs and made that place fast. Zubair of Rāgh, again, whose forefathers also will have been begs of the Badakhshān Shāhs, uprose in Rāgh.⁹²¹ Jahāngīr Turkmān, again, a servant of Khusrau Shāh’s Walī, collected some of the fugitive soldiers and tribesmen Walī had left behind, and with them withdrew into a fastness.⁹²²

Nāṣir Mīrzā, hearing these various items of news and spurred on by the instigation of a few silly, short-sighted persons to covet Badakhshān, marched along the Shibr-tū and Āb-dara road, driving like sheep before him the families of the men who had come into Kābul from the other side of the Amū.⁹²³

(p. Affairs of Khusrau Shāh.)

At the time Khusrau Shāh and Aḥmad-i-qāsim were in flight from Ājar for Khurāsān,⁹²⁴ they meeting in with Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā and Ẕū’n-nūn Beg, all went on together to the presence of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā in Herī. All had long been foes of his; all had behaved unmannerly to him; what brands had they not set on his heart! Yet all now went to him in their distress, and all went through me. For it is not likely they would have seen him if I had not made Khusrau Shāh helpless by parting him from his following, and if I had not taken Kābul from Ẕū’n’nūn’s son, Muqīm. Badī‘u’z-zamān Mīrzā himself was as dough in the hands of the rest; beyond their word he could not go. Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā took up a gracious attitude towards one and all, mentioned no-one’s misdeeds, even made them gifts.

Shortly after their arrival Khusrau Shāh asked for leave to go to his own country, saying, “If I go, I shall get it all into my hands.” As he had reached Herī without equipment and without resources, they finessed a little about his leave. He became importunate. Muḥammad Barandūq retorted roundly on him with, “When you had 30,000 men behind you and the whole country in your hands, what did you effect against the Aūzbeg? What will you do now with your 500 men and the Aūzbegs in possession?” He added a little good advice in a few sensible words, but all was in vain because the fated hour of Khusrau Shāh’s death was near. Leave was at last given because of his importunity; Khusrau Shāh with his 3 or 400 followers, went straight into the borders of Dahānah. There as Nāṣir Mīrzā had just gone across, these two met.

Now the Badakhshī chiefs had invited only the Mīrzā; they had not invited Khusrau Shāh. Try as the Mīrzā did to persuade Khusrau Shāh to go into the hill-country,⁹²⁵ the latter, quite understanding the whole time, would not consent to go, his own idea being that if he marched under the Mīrzā, he would get the country into his own hands. In the end, unable to agree, each of them, near Ishkīmīsh, arrayed his following, put on mail, drew out to fight, and – departed. Nāṣir Mīrzā went on for Badakhshān; Khusrau Shāh after collecting a disorderly rabble, good and bad of some 1,000 persons, went, with the intention of laying siege to Qūndūz, to Khwāja Chār-tāq, one or two yīghāch outside it.

(q. Death of Khusrau Shāh.)

At the time Shaibāq Khān, after overcoming Sult̤ān Aḥmad Taṃbal and Andijān, made a move on Ḥiṣār, his Honour Khusrau Shāh⁹²⁶ flung away his country (Qūndūz and Ḥiṣār) without a blow struck, and saved himself. Thereupon Shaibāq Khān went to Ḥiṣār in which were Sherīm the page and a few good braves. They did not surrender Ḥiṣār, though their honourable beg had flung his country away and gone off; they made Ḥiṣār fast. The siege of Ḥiṣār Shaibāq Khān entrusted to Ḥamza Sl. and Mahdī Sult̤ān,⁹²⁷ went to Qūndūz, gave Qūndūz to his younger brother, Maḥmūd Sult̤ān and betook himself without delay to Khwārizm against Chīn Ṣūfī. But as, before he reached Samarkand on his way to Khwārizm, he heard of the death in Qūndūz of his brother, Maḥmūd Sult̤ān, he gave that place to Qaṃbar Bī of Marv.⁹²⁸

Qaṃbar Bī was in Qūndūz when Khusrau Shāh went against it; he at once sent off galloppers to summon Ḥamza Sl. and the others Shaibāq Khān had left behind. Ḥamza Sl. came himself as far as the sarāī on the Amū bank where he put his sons and begs in command of a force which went direct against Khusrau Shāh. There was neither fight nor flight for that fat, little man; Ḥamza Sult̤ān’s men unhorsed him, killed his sister’s son, Aḥmad-i-qāsim, Sherīm the page and several good braves. Him they took into Qūndūz, there struck his head off and from there sent it to Shaibāq Khān in Khwārizm.⁹²⁹

(r. Conduct in Kābul of Khusrau Shāh’s retainers.)

Just as Khusrau Shāh had said they would do, his former retainers and followers, no sooner than he marched against Qūndūz, changed in their demeanour to me,⁹³⁰ most of them marching off to near Khwāja-i-riwāj.⁹³¹ The greater number of the men in my service had been in his. The Mughūls behaved well, taking up a position of adherence to me.⁹³² On all this the news of Khusrau Shāh’s death fell like water on fire; it put his men out.

911 AH. – JUNE 4th 1505 to MAY 24th 1506 AD.⁹³³

(a. Death of Qūtlūq-nigār Khānīm.)

In the month of Muḥarram my mother had fever. Blood was let without effect and a Khurāsānī doctor, known as Sayyid T̤abīb, in accordance with the Khurāsān practice, gave her water-melon, but her time to die must have come, for on the Saturday after six days of illness, she went to God’s mercy.

On Sunday I and Qāsim Kūkūldāsh conveyed her to the New-year’s Garden on the mountain-skirt⁹³⁴ where Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā had built a house, and there, with the permission of his heirs,⁹³⁵ we committed her to the earth. While we were mourning for her, people let me know about (the death of) my younger Khān dādā Alacha Khān, and my grandmother Aīsān-daulat Begīm.⁹³⁶ Close upon Khānīm’s Fortieth⁹³⁷ arrived from Khurāsān Shāh Begīm the mother of the Khāns, together with my maternal-aunt Mihr-nigār Khānīm, formerly of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā’s ḥaram, and Muḥammad Ḥusain Kūrkān Dūghlāt.⁹³⁸ Lament broke out afresh; the bitterness of these partings was extreme. When the mourning-rites had been observed, food and victuals set out for the poor and destitute, the Qorān recited, and prayers offered for the departed souls, we steadied ourselves and all took heart again.

(b. A futile start for Qandahār.)

When set free from these momentous duties, we got an army to horse for Qandahār under the strong insistance of Bāqī Chaghānīānī. At the start I went to Qūsh-nādir (var. nāwar) where on dismounting I got fever. It was a strange sort of illness for whenever with much trouble I had been awakened, my eyes closed again in sleep. In four or five days I got quite well.

(c. An earthquake.)

At that time there was a great earthquake⁹³⁹ such that most of the ramparts of forts and the walls of gardens fell down; houses were levelled to the ground in towns and villages and many persons lay dead beneath them. Every house fell in Paghmān-village, and 70 to 80 strong heads-of-houses lay dead under their walls. Between Pagh-mān and Beg-tūt⁹⁴⁰ a piece of ground, a good stone-throw⁹⁴¹ wide may-be, slid down as far as an arrow’s-flight; where it had slid springs appeared. On the road between Istarghach and Maidān the ground was so broken up for 6 to 8 yīghāch (36-48 m.) that in some places it rose as high as an elephant, in others sank as deep; here and there people were sucked in. When the Earth quaked, dust rose from the tops of the mountains. Nūru’l-lāh the t̤ambourchī⁹⁴² had been playing before me; he had two instruments with him and at the moment of the quake had both in his hands; so out of his own control was he that the two knocked against each other. Jahāngīr Mīrzā was in the porch of an upper-room at a house built by Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā in Tīpa; when the Earth quaked, he let himself down and was not hurt, but the roof fell on some-one with him in that upper-room, presumably one of his own circle; that this person was not hurt in the least must have been solely through God’s mercy. In Tīpa most of the houses were levelled to the ground. The Earth quaked 33 times on the first day, and for a month afterwards used to quake two or three times in the 24 hours. The begs and soldiers having been ordered to repair the breaches made in the towers and ramparts of the fort (Kābul), everything was made good again in 20 days or a month by their industry and energy.

(d. Campaign against Qalāt-i-ghilzāī.)

Owing to my illness and to the earthquake, our plan of going to Qandahār had fallen somewhat into the background. The illness left behind and the fort repaired, it was taken up again. We were undecided at the time we dismounted below Shniz⁹⁴³ whether to go to Qandahār, or to over-run the hills and plains. Jahāngīr Mīrzā and the begs having assembled, counsel was taken and the matter found settlement in a move on Qalāt. On this move Jahāngīr Mīrzā and Bāqī Chaghānīānī insisted strongly.

At Tāzī⁹⁴⁴ there was word that Sher-i-‘alī the page with Kīchīk Bāqī Diwāna and others had thoughts of desertion; all were arrested; Sher-i-‘alī was put to death because he had given clear signs of disloyalty and misdoing both while in my service and not in mine, in this country and in that country.⁹⁴⁵ The others were let go with loss of horse and arms.

On arriving at Qalāt we attacked at once and from all sides, without our mail and without siege-appliances. As has been mentioned in this History, Kīchīk Khwāja, the elder brother of Khwāja Kalān, was a most daring brave; he had used his sword in my presence several times; he now clambered up the south-west tower of Qalāt, was pricked in the eye with a spear when almost up, and died of the wound two or three days after the place was taken. Here that Kīchīk Bāqī Dīwāna who had been arrested when about to desert with Sher-i-‘alī the page, expiated his baseness by being killed with a stone when he went under the ramparts. One or two other men died also. Fighting of this sort went on till the Afternoon Prayer when, just as our men were worn-out with the struggle and labour, those in the fort asked for peace and made surrender. Qalāt had been given by Ẕū’n-nūn Arghūn to Muqīm, and in it now were Muqīm’s retainers, Farrukh Arghūn and Qarā Bīlūt (Afghān). When they came out with their swords and quivers hanging round their necks, we forgave their offences.⁹⁴⁶ It was not my wish to reduce this high family⁹⁴⁷ to great straits; for why? Because if we did so when such a foe as the Aūzbeg was at our side, what would be said by those of far and near, who saw and heard?

As the move on Qalāt had been made under the insistance of Jahāngīr Mīrzā and Bāqī Chaghānīānī, it was now made over to the Mīrzā’s charge. He would not accept it; Bāqī also could give no good answer in the matter. So, after such a storming and assaulting of Qalāt, its capture was useless.

We went back to Kābul after over-running the Afghāns of Sawā-sang and Ālā-tāgh on the south of Qalāt.

The night we dismounted at Kābul I went into the fort; my tent and stable being in the Chār-bāgh, a Khirilchī thief going into the garden, fetched out and took away a bay horse of mine with its accoutrements, and my khachar.⁹⁴⁸

(e. Death of Bāqī Chaghānīānī.)

From the time Bāqī Chaghānīanī joined me on the Amū-bank, no man of mine had had more trust and authority.⁹⁴⁹ If a word were said, if an act were done, that word was his word, that act, his act. Spite of this, he had not done me fitting service, nor had he shewn me due civility. Quite the contrary! he had done things bad and unmannerly. Mean he was, miserly and malicious, ill-tongued, envious and cross-natured. So miserly was he that although when he left Tīrmīẕ, with his family and possessions, he may have owned 30 to 40,000 sheep, and although those masses of sheep used to pass in front of us at every camping-ground, he did not give a single one to our bare braves, tortured as they were by the pangs of hunger; at last in Kāh-mard, he gave 50!

Spite of acknowledging me for his chief (pādshāh), he had nagarets beaten at his own Gate. He was sincere to none, had regard for none. What revenue there is from Kābul (town) comes from the t̤amghā⁹⁵⁰; the whole of this he had, together with the dārogha-ship in Kābul and Panjhīr, the Gadai (var. Kidī) Hazāra, and kūshlūk⁹⁵¹ and control of the Gate.⁹⁵² With all this favour and finding, he was not in the least content; quite the reverse! What medley of mischief he planned has been told; we had taken not the smallest notice of any of it, nor had we cast it in his face. He was always asking for leave, affecting scruple at making the request. We used to acknowledge the scruple and excuse ourselves from giving the leave. This would put him down for a few days; then he would ask again. He went too far with his affected scruple and his takings of leave! Sick were we too of his conduct and his character. We gave the leave; he repented asking for it and began to agitate against it, but all in vain! He got written down and sent to me, “His Highness made compact not to call me to account till nine⁹⁵³ misdeeds had issued from me.” I answered with a reminder of eleven successive faults and sent this to him through Mullā Bābā of Pashāghar. He submitted and was allowed to go towards Hindūstān, taking his family and possessions. A few of his retainers escorted him through Khaibar and returned; he joined Bāqī Gāgīānī’s caravan and crossed at Nīl-āb.

Daryā Khān’s son, Yār-i-ḥusain was then in Kacha-kot,⁹⁵⁴ having drawn into his service, on the warrant of the farmān taken from me in Kohāt, a few Afghāns of the Dilazāk (var. Dilah-zāk) and Yūsuf-zāī and also a few Jats and Gujūrs.⁹⁵⁵ With these he beat the roads, taking toll with might and main. Hearing about Bāqī, he blocked the road, made the whole party prisoner, killed Bāqī and took his wife.

We ourselves had let Bāqī go without injuring him, but his own misdeeds rose up against him; his own acts defeated him.

Leave thou to Fate the man who does thee wrong;

For Fate is an avenging servitor.

(f. Attack on the Turkmān Hazāras.)

That winter we just sat in the Chār-bāgh till snow had fallen once or twice.

The Turkmān Hazāras, since we came into Kābul, had done a variety of insolent things and had robbed on the roads. We thought therefore of over-running them, went into the town to Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā’s house at the Būstān-sarāī, and thence rode out in the month of Sha‘bān (Feb. 1506 AD.).

We raided a few Hazāras at Janglīk, at the mouth of the Dara-i-khūsh (Happy-valley).⁹⁵⁶ Some were in a cave near the valley-mouth, hiding perhaps. Shaikh Darwīsh Kūkūldāsh went incautiously right (auq) up to the cave-mouth, was shot (aūqlāb) in the nipple by a Hazāra inside and died there and then (aūq).⁹⁵⁷

(Author’s note on Shaikh Darwīsh.) He had been with me in the guerilla-times, was Master-armourer (qūr-begī), drew a strong bow and shot a good shaft.

As most of the Turkmān Hazāras seemed to be wintering inside the Dara-i-khūsh, we marched against them.

The valley is shut in,⁹⁵⁸ by a mile-long gully stretching inwards from its mouth. The road engirdles the mountain, having a straight fall of some 50 to 60 yards below it and above it a precipice. Horsemen go along it in single-file. We passed the gully and went on through the day till between the Two Prayers (3 p.m.) without meeting a single person. Having spent the night somewhere, we found a fat camel⁹⁵⁹ belonging to the Hazāras, had it killed, made part of its flesh into kabābs⁹⁶⁰ and cooked part in a ewer (aftāb). Such good camel-flesh had never been tasted; some could not tell it from mutton.

Next day we marched on for the Hazāra winter-camp. At the first watch (9 a.m.) a man came from ahead, saying that the Hazāras had blocked a ford in front with branches, checked our men and were fighting. That winter the snow lay very deep; to move was difficult except on the road. The swampy meadows (tuk-āb) along the stream were all frozen; the stream could only be crossed from the road because of snow and ice. The Hazāras had cut many branches, put them at the exit from the water and were fighting in the valley-bottom with horse and foot or raining arrows down from either side.

Muḥammad ‘Alī Mubashshir⁹⁶¹ Beg, one of our most daring braves, newly promoted to the rank of beg and well worthy of favour, went along the branch-blocked road without his mail, was shot in the belly and instantly surrendered his life. As we had gone forward in haste, most of us were not in mail. Shaft after shaft flew by and fell; with each one Yūsuf’s Aḥmad said anxiously, “Bare⁹⁶² like this you go into it! I have seen two arrows go close to your head!” Said I, “Don’t fear! Many as good arrows as these have flown past my head!” So much said, Qāsim Beg, his men in full accoutrement,⁹⁶³ found a ford on our right and crossed. Before their charge the Hazāras could make no stand; they fled, swiftly pursued and unhorsed one after the other by those just up with them.

In guerdon for this feat Bangash was given to Qāsim Beg. Ḥātim the armourer having been not bad in the affair, was promoted to Shaikh Darwīsh’s office of qūr-begī. Bābā Qulī’s Kīpik (sic) also went well forward in it, so we entrusted Muḥ. ‘Alī Mubashshir’s office to him.

Sl. Qulī Chūnāq (one-eared) started in pursuit of the Hazāras but there was no getting out of the hollow because of the snow. For my own part I just went with these braves.

Near the Hazāra winter-camp we found many sheep and herds of horses. I myself collected as many as 4 to 500 sheep and from 20 to 25 horses. Sl. Qulī Chūnāq and two or three of my personal servants were with me. I have ridden in a raid twice⁹⁶⁴; this was the first time; the other was when, coming in from Khurāsān (912 AH.), we raided these same Turkmān Hazāras. Our foragers brought in masses of sheep and horses. The Hazāra wives and their little children had gone off up the snowy slopes and stayed there; we were rather idle and it was getting late in the day; so we turned back and dismounted in their very dwellings. Deep indeed was the snow that winter! Off the road it was up to a horse’s qāptāl,⁹⁶⁵ so deep that the night-watch was in the saddle all through till shoot of dawn.

Going out of the valley, we spent the next night just inside the mouth, in the Hazāra winter-quarters. Marching from there, we dismounted at Janglīk. At Janglīk Yārak T̤aghāī and other late-comers were ordered to take the Hazāras who had killed Shaikh Darwīsh and who, luckless and death-doomed, seemed still to be in the cave. Yārak T̤aghāī and his band by sending smoke into the cave, took 70 to 80 Hazāras who mostly died by the sword.

(g. Collection of the Nijr-aū tribute.)

On the way back from the Hazāra expedition we went to the Āī-tūghdī neighbourhood below Bārān⁹⁶⁶ in order to collect the revenue of Nijr-aū. Jahāngīr Mīrzā, come up from Ghaznī, waited on me there. At that time, on Ramẓān 13th (Feb. 7th) such sciatic-pain attacked me that for 40 days some-one had to turn me over from one side to the other.

Of the (seven) valleys of the Nijr-water the Pīchkān-valley, – and of the villages in the Pīchkān-valley Ghain, – and of Ghain its head-man Ḥusain Ghainī in particular, together with his elder and younger brethren, were known and notorious for obstinacy and daring. On this account a force was sent under Jahāngīr Mīrzā, Qāsim Beg going too, which went to Sar-i-tūp (Hill-top), stormed and took a sangur and made a few meet their doom.

Because of the sciatic pain, people made a sort of litter for me in which they carried me along the bank of the Bārān and into the town to the Būstān-sarāī. There I stayed for a few days; before that trouble was over a boil came out on my left cheek; this was lanced and for it I also took a purge. When relieved, I went out into the Chār-bāgh.

(h. Misconduct of Jahāngīr Mīrzā.)

At the time Jahāngīr Mīrzā waited on me, Ayūb’s sons Yūsuf and Buhlūl, who were in his service, had taken up a strifeful and seditious attitude towards me; so the Mīrzā was not found to be what he had been earlier. In a few days he marched out of Tīpa in his mail,⁹⁶⁷ hurried back to Ghaznī, there took Nānī, killed some of its people and plundered all. After that he marched off with whatever men he had, through the Hazāras,⁹⁶⁸ his face set for Bāmīān. God knows that nothing had been done by me or my dependants to give him ground for anger or reproach! What was heard of later on as perhaps explaining his going off in the way he did, was this; – When Qāsim Beg went with other begs, to give him honouring meeting as he came up from Ghaznī, the Mīrzā threw a falcon off at a quail. Just as the falcon, getting close, put out its pounce to seize the quail, the quail dropped to the ground. Hereupon shouts and cries, “Taken! is it taken?” Said Qāsim Beg, “Who looses the foe in his grip?” Their misunderstanding of this was their sole reason for going off, but they backed themselves on one or two other worse and weaker old cronish matters.⁹⁶⁹ After doing in Ghaznī what has been mentioned, they drew off through the Hazāras to the Mughūl clans.⁹⁷⁰ These clans at that time had left Nāṣir Mīrzā but had not joined the Aūzbeg, and were in Yāī, Astar-āb and the summer-pastures thereabouts.

(i. Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā calls up help against Shaibāq Khān.)

Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, having resolved to repel Shaibāq Khān, summoned all his sons; me too he summoned, sending to me Sayyid Afẓal, son of Sayyid ‘Alī Khwāb-bīn (Seer-of-dreams). It was right on several grounds for us to start for Khurāsān. One ground was that when a great ruler, sitting, as Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā sat, in Tīmūr Beg’s place, had resolved to act against such a foe as Shaibāq Khān and had called up many men and had summoned his sons and his begs, if there were some who went on foot it was for us to go if on our heads! if some took the bludgeon, we would take the stone! A second ground was that, since Jahāngīr Mīrzā had gone to such lengths and had behaved so badly,⁹⁷¹ we had either to dispel his resentment or to repel his attack.

(j. Chīn Ṣūfī’s death.)

This year Shaibāq Khān took Khwārizm after besieging Chīn Sūfī in it for ten months. There had been a mass of fighting during the siege; many were the bold deeds done by the Khwārizmī braves; nothing soever did they leave undone. Again and again their shooting was such that their arrows pierced shield and cuirass, sometimes the two cuirasses.⁹⁷² For ten months they sustained that siege without hope in any quarter. A few bare braves then lost heart, entered into talk with the Aūzbeg and were in the act of letting him up into the fort when Chīn Ṣūfī had the news and went to the spot. Just as he was beating and forcing down the Aūzbegs, his own page, in a discharge of arrows, shot him from behind. No man was left to fight; the Aūzbegs took Khwārizm. God’s mercy on Chīn Ṣūfī, who never for one moment ceased to stake his life for his chief!⁹⁷³

Shaibāq Khān entrusted Khwārizm to Kūpuk (sic) Bī and went back to Samarkand.

(k. Death of Sultān Ḥusain Mīrzā.)

Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā having led his army out against Shaibāq Khān as far as Bābā Ilāhī⁹⁷⁴ went to God’s mercy, in the month of Ẕū’l-ḥijja (Ẕū’l-ḥijja 11th 911 AH. – May 5th 1506 AD.).

SULT̤ĀN ḤUSAIN MĪRZĀ AND HIS COURT.⁹⁷⁵

(a.) His birth and descent.

He was born in Herī (Harāt), in (Muḥarram) 842 (AH. – June-July, 1438 AD.) in Shāhrukh Mīrzā’s time⁹⁷⁶ and was the son of Manṣūr Mīrzā, son of Bāī-qarā Mīrzā, son of ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā, son of Amīr Tīmūr. Manṣūr Mīrzā and Bāī-qarā Mīrzā never reigned.

His mother was Fīrūza Begīm, a (great-)grandchild (nabīra) of Tīmūr Beg; through her he became a grandchild of Mīrān-shāh also.⁹⁷⁷ He was of high birth on both sides, a ruler of royal lineage.⁹⁷⁸ Of the marriage (of Manṣūr with Fīrūza) were born two sons and two daughters, namely, Bāī-qarā Mīrzā and Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, Ākā Begīm and another daughter, Badka Begīm whom Aḥmad Khān took.⁹⁷⁹

Bāī-qarā Mīrzā was older than Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā; he was his younger brother’s retainer but used not to be present as head of the Court;⁹⁸⁰ except in Court, he used to share his brother’s divan (tūshak). He was given Balkh by his younger brother and was its Commandant for several years. He had three sons, Sl. Muḥammad Mīrzā, Sl. Wais Mīrzā and Sl. Iskandar Mīrzā.⁹⁸¹

Ākā Begīm was older than the Mīrzā; she was taken by Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā,⁹⁸² a grandson (nabīra) of Mīrān-shāh; by him she had a son (Muḥammad Sult̤ān Mīrzā), known as Kīchīk (Little) Mīrzā, who at first was in his maternal-uncle’s service, but later on gave up soldiering to occupy himself with letters. He is said to have become very learned and also to have taste in verse.⁹⁸³ Here is a Persian quatrain of his: —

For long on a life of devotion I plumed me,
As one of the band of the abstinent ranged me;
Where when Love came was devotion? denial?
By the mercy of God it is I have proved me!

Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

1

Cf. Cap. II, PROBLEMS OF THE MUTILATED BABUR-NAMA and Tarīkh-i-rashīdi, trs. p. 174.

Back

2

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).

Back

3

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.

Back

4

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.

Back

5

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.

Back

6

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.

Back

7

App. H, xxx.

Back

8

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).

Back

9

Parts of the Babur-nama sent to Babur’s sons are not included here.

Back

10

The standard of comparison is the 382 fols. of the Haidarabad Codex.

Back

11

This MS. is not to be confused with one Erskine misunderstood Humayun to have copied (Memoirs, p. 303 and JRAS. 1900, p. 443).

Back

12

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.

Back

13

See Index s. n. and III ante and JRAS. 1900-3-5-6-7.

Back

14

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.

Back

15

For analysis of a retranslated passage see JRAS. 1908, p. 85.

Back

16

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.

Back

17

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.

Back

18

JRAS. 1900 p. 466, 1902 p. 655, 1905 art. s. n., 1908 pp. 78, 98; Index in loco s.n.

Back

19

Cf. JRAS. 1900, Nos. VI, VII, VIII.

Back

20

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).

Back

21

Cf. Erskine’s Preface passim, and in loco item XI, cap. iv. The Memoirs of Baber, and Index s. n.

Back

22

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.

Back

23

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.²⁸⁵⁴

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.²⁸⁵⁵

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.²⁸⁵⁶

[Babur’s history has been thus brought to an end, incomplete in the balance needed of 7. In Kehr’s volume a few pages are left blank except for what shews a Russian librarian’s opinion of the plan of the book, “Here end the writings of Shah Babur.”]

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.

[The remaining entries in Kehr’s volume are a quatrain which may make jesting reference to his finished task, a librarian’s Russian entry of the number of pages (831), and the words Etablissement Orientale, Fr. v. Adelung, 1825 (the Director of the School from 1793).²⁸⁵⁷

Back

24

See Gregorief’s “Russian policy regarding Central Asia”, quoted in Schuyler’s Turkistan, App. IV.

Back

25

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.

Back

26

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!

Back

27

Neither Ilminski nor Smirnov mentions another “Babur-nama” Codex than Kehr’s.

Back

28

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.

Back

29

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.

Back

30

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.).

Back

31

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.)

Back

32

See Āyīn-i-akbarī, Jarrett, p. 44.

Back

33

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.

Back

34

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.

Back

35

Schuyler (ii, 54) gives the extreme length of the valley as about 160 miles and its width, at its widest, as 65 miles.

Back

36

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.)

Back

37

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.

Back

38

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.

Back

39

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.

Back

40

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.

Back

41

Either a kind of melon or the pear. For local abundance of pears see Āyīn-i-akbarī, Blochmann p. 6; Kostenko and Von Schwarz.

Back

42

qūrghān, i. e. the walled town within which was the citadel (ark).

Back

43

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.

Back

44

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.”

Back

45

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.

Back

46

b. 1440; d. 1500 AD.

Back

47

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.)

Back

48

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.)

Back

49

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.

Back

50

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.

Back

51

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.

Back

52

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.

Back

53

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.

Back

54

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.

Back

55

Madame Ujfalvy has sketched a possible successor. Schuyler found two mosques at the foot of Takht-i-sulaimān, perhaps Bābur’s Jauza Masjid.

Back

56

aūl shāh-jū’īdīn sū qūyārlār.

Back

57

Ribbon Jasper, presumably.

Back

58

Kostenko (ii, 30), 71-3/4 versts i. e. 47 m. 4-1/2 fur. by the Postal Road.

Back

59

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 Niz̤āmī 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.”

Back

60

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.

Back

61

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.

Back

62

Shaikh Burhānu’d-dīn ‘Alī Qīlīch: b. circa 530 AH. (1135 AD.) d. 593 AH. (1197 AD.). See Hamilton’s Hidāyat.

Back

63

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.

Back

64

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.

Back

65

Of the Mirror Stone neither Fedtschenko nor Ujfalvy could get news.

Back

66

Bābur distinguishes here between Tāshkīnt and Shāhrukhiya. Cf. f. 2 and note to Fanākat.

Back

67

He left the hill-country above Sūkh in Muḥarram 910 AH. (mid-June 1504 AD.).

Back

68

For a good account of Khujand see Kostenko i, 346.

Back

69

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.

Back

70

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.

Back

71

kūb artūq dūr, perhaps brought to Hindūstān where Bābur wrote the statement.

Back

72

Turkish arrow-flight, London, 1791, 482 yards.

Back

73

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.

Back

74

Pers. trans. ahū-i-safed. Cf. f. 3b note.

Back

75

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).

Back

76

Cf. f. 2 and note.

Back

77

Schuyler (ii, 3), 18 m.

Back

78

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 Rabāt̤. 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 Rabāt̤ 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.

Back

79

bādiya; a word perhaps selected as punning on bād, wind.

Back

80

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.

Back

81

Measured on the French military map of 1904, this may be 80 kil. i. e. 50 miles.

Back

82

Concerning several difficult passages in the rest of Bābur’s account of Akhsī, see Appendix A.

Back

83

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.

Back

84

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.

Back

85

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.

Back

86

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.

Back

87

tabarraklūq. Cf. f. 48b foot, for the same use of the word.

Back

88

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.

Back

89

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.

Back

90

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.

Back

91

kīshī, person, here manifestly fighting men.

Back

92

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 Tīmūrid 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.”

Back

93

bī murād, so translated because retirement was caused once by the overruling of Khwāja ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh Aḥrārī. (T.R. p. 113.)

Back

94

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.)

Back

95

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.)

Back

96

i. e. Rābī‘a-sult̤ān, 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.

Back

97

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.

Back

98

i. e. soared from earth, died. For some details of the accident see A.N. (H. Beveridge, i, 220.)

Back

99

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.

Back

100

Cf. Rauzatu’ṣ-ṣafā vi, 266. (H.B.)

Back

101

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.

Back

102

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; Tīmūr-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.

Back

103

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.

Back

104

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.

Back

105

qaẓālār, the prayers and fasts omitted when due, through war, travel sickness, etc.

Back

106

rawān sawādī bār īdī; perhaps, wrote a running hand. De C. i, 13, ses lectures courantes étaient…

Back

107

The dates of ‘Umar Shaikh’s limits of perusal allow the Quintets (Khamsatīn) here referred to to be those of Niz̤āmī and Amīr Khusrau of Dihlī. The Maṣnawī must be that of Jalālu’d-dīn Rūmī. (H.B.)

Back

108

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.

Back

109

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.

Back

110

ma‘jūn. Cf. Von Schwarz p. 286 for a recipe.

Back

111

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.

Back

112

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.

Back

113

tīka sīkrītkū, lit. likely to make goats leap, from sīkrīmāk to jump close-footed (Shaw).

Back

114

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.

Back

115

i. e. Russian; it is the Arys tributary of the Sīr.

Back

116

The Fr. map of 1904 shows Kas, in the elbow of the Sīr, which seems to represent Khwāṣ.

Back

117

i. e. the Chīr-chīk tributary of the Sīr.

Back

118

Concerning his name, see T.R. p. 173.

Back

119

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.)

Back

120

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.

Back

121

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.

Back

122

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.)

Back

123

tūshtī, which here seems to mean that she fell to his share on division of captives. Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ makes it a love-match and places the marriage before Bābur’s departure. Cf. f. 95 and notes.

Back

124

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.

Back

125

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.

Back

126

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.

Back

127

Kehr’s MS. (Ilminsky p. 12) and its derivatives here interpolate the erroneous statement that the sons of Yūnas were Afāq and Bābā Khāns.

Back

128

i. e. broke up the horde. Cf. T.R. p. 74.

Back

129

See f. 50b for his descent.

Back

130

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.

Back

131

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.

Back

132

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.

Back

133

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.

Back

134

qūyūb īdī, probably in childhood.

Back

135

She was divorced by Shaibānī Khān in 907 AH. in order to allow him to make lawful marriage with her niece, Khān-zāda.

Back

136

This was a prudential retreat before Shaibānī Khān. Cf. f. 213.

Back

137

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.

Back

138

Qila‘-i-z̤afar. 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.

Back

139

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.

Back

140

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).

Back

141

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.

Back

142

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.

Back

143

tā’ib and t̤arīqā suggest that Ḥaidar had become an orthodox Musalmān in or about 933 AH. (1527 AD.).

Back

144

Abū’l-faẓl adds music to Ḥaidar’s accomplishments and Ḥaidar’s own Prologue mentions yet others.

Back

145

Cf. T.R. s. n. and Gul-badan’s H.N. s. n. Ḥaram Begīm.

Back

146

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 Sult̤ān Muḥammad.

Back

147

Cf. f. 6b note.

Back

148

i. e. Khān’s child.

Back

149

The careful pointing of the Ḥai. MS. clears up earlier confusion by showing the narrowing of the vowels from ālāchī to alacha.

Back

150

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 Sult̤ān-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.

Back

151

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.

Back

152

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.

Back

153

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.”

Back

154

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.

Back

155

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.

Back

156

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.

Back

157

i. e. of the military class. Cf. Vullers s. n. and T.R. p. 301.

Back

158

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.

Back

159

khāk-bīla; the Sanglākh, (quoting this passage) gives khāk-p: l:k as the correct form of the word.

Back

160

Cf. f. 99b.

Back

161

One of Tīmūr’s begs.

Back

162

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, Sult̤ān Wālida.

Back

163

kīm dīsā būlghāī, perhaps meaning, “Nothing of service to me.”

Back

164

Wais the Thin.

Back

165

Cf. Chardin ed. Langlès v, 461 and ed. 1723 AD. v, 183.

Back

166

n. e. of Kāsān. Cf. f. 74. Ḥai MS., erroneously, Samarkand.

Back

167

An occasional doubt arises as to whether a t̤aurī of the text is Arabic and dispraises or Turkī and laudatory. Cf. Mems. p. 17 and Méms. i, 3.

Back

168

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.

Back

169

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.

Back

170

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 Sult̤ānīm also when used (f. 72) of Sl. Muḥammad Khānika but of Sult̤ānīm 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 Sult̤ān 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.)

Back

171

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.)

Back

172

Bēglār (nīng) mīnī u wilāyatnī tāpshūrghūlārī dūr; a noticeably idiomatic sentence. Cf. f. 16b 1. 6 and 1. 7 for a repetition.

Back

173

Maḥmūd was in Tāshkīnt, Aḥmad in Kāshghār or on the Āq-sū.

Back

174

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.

Back

175

darzī; Ḥ.S. khaiyāt̤.

Back

176

bīr yīrgā (qūyūb), lit. to one place.

Back

177

i. e. reconstructed the earthern defences. Cf. Von Schwarz s. n. loess.

Back

178

They had been sent, presumably, before ‘Umar Shaikh’s death, to observe Sl. Aḥmad M.’s advance. Cf. f. 6.

Back

179

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.

Back

180

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 Sult̤ān Sātūq-būghrā Khān Ghāzī Pādshāh and Tārīkh-i-nāṣirī (Raverty s. n.)

Back

181

The time-table of the Andijān Railway has a station, Kouwa (Qabā).

Back

182

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.

Back

183

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.)

Back

184

t̤awīla t̤awīla ātlār yīghīlīb aūlā kīrīshtī. I understand the word yīghīlīb to convey that the massing led to the spread of the murrain.

Back

185

jān tārātmāqlār i. e. as a gift to their over-lord.

Back

186

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.

Back

187

Cf. f. 6.

Back

188

beg ātākā, lit. beg for father.

Back

189

T.R. s. n. Ābā-bikr.

Back

190

Cf. f. 6b and note.

Back

191

faqra u masākin, i. e. those who have food for one day and those who have none in hand. (Steingass.)

Back

192

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.

Back

193

bīr sūnkāk bār īkān dūr. I understand that something defiling must have been there, perhaps a bone.

Back

194

Khwājanīng ham āyāghlārī ārādā īdī.

Back

195

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.

Back

196

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.

Back

197

qīrghīcha, astar palumbarius. (Shaw’s Voc. Scully.)

Back

198

Perhaps, not quarrelsome.

Back

199

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.

Back

200

i. e. condiment, ce qu’on ajoute au pain.

Back

201

Cf. f. 6.

Back

202

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.

Back

203

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.

Back

204

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.)

Back

205

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).

Back

206

Cf. f. 170.

Back

207

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.

Back

208

Cf. f. 37b.

Back

209

Cf. f. 6b and note.

Back

210

mashaf kitābat qīlūr īdī.

Back

211

Cf. f. 36 and Ḥ.S. ii. 271.

Back

212

sīnkīlīsī ham mūndā īdī.

Back

213

khāna-wādalār, viz. the Chaghatāī, the Tīmūrid in two Mīrān-shāhī branches, ‘Alī’s and Bābur’s and the Bāī-qarā in Harāt.

Back

214

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.

Back

215

Ẕū’l-ḥijja 910 AH. – May 1505 AD. Cf. f. 154. This statement helps to define what Bābur reckoned his expeditions into Hindūstān.

Back

216

Aīkū (Ayāgū) – tīmūr Tarkhān Arghūn d. circa 793 AH. -1391 AD. He was a friend of Tīmūr. See Z̤.N. i, 525 etc.

Back

217

āndāq ikhlāq u at̤awārī 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.

Back

218

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.

Back

219

So pointed in the Ḥai. MS. I surmise it a clan-name.

Back

220

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.

Back

221

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.

Back

222

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.

Back

223

Cf. f. 27. He married a full-sister of Bāī-sunghar.

Back

224

Gulistān Part I. Story 27. For “steaming up,” see Tennyson’s Lotus-eaters Choric song, canto 8 (H.B.).

Back

225

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.

Back

226

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.

Back

227

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.

Back

228

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.

Back

229

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.]

Back

230

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.

Back

231

From Niz̤āmī’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.).

Back

232

See Hughes Dictionary of Islām s.nn. Eating and Food.

Back

233

Cf. f. 6b and note. If ‘Umar Shaikh were Maḥmūd’s full-brother, his name might well appear here.

Back

234

i. e. “Not a farthing, not a half-penny.”

Back

235

Here the Mems. enters a statement, not found in the Turkī text, that Maḥmūd’s dress was elegant and fashionable.

Back

236

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-az̤farī, 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.

Back

237

i. e. “a collection of poems in the alphabetical order of the various end rhymes.” (Steingass.)

Back

238

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.

Back

239

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.

Back

240

Presumably the “Hindūstān the Less” of Clavijo (Markham p. 3 and p. 113), approx. Qaṃbar-‘alī’s districts. Clavijo includes Tīrmīẕ under the name.

Back

241

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.

Back

242

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.

Back

243

The T.R. (p. 330) supplies this name.

Back

244

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.

Back

245

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.

Back

246

See Ḥ.S. ii, 250. Here Pīr-i-Muḥammad Aīlchī-būghā was drowned. Cf. f. 29.

Back

247

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.

Back

248

i. e. when Bābur was writing in Hindūstān.

Back

249

For his family see f. 55b note to Yār-‘alī Balāl.

Back

250

bā wujūd turklūk muhkam paidā kunanda īdī.

Back

251

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.

Back

252

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.

Back

253

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.).

Back

254

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.

Back

255

See T.R. s. nn. Mīr Ayūb and Ayūb.

Back

256

This passage is made more clear by f. 120b and f. 125b.

Back

257

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.

Back

258

? full of splits or full handsome.

Back

259

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.

Back

260

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.

Back

261

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.

Back

262

bahādurlūq aūlūsh, an actual portion of food.

Back

263

i. e. either unmailed or actually naked.

Back

264

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.

Back

265

i. e. the dislocation due to ‘Umar Shaikh’s death.

Back

266

Cf. f. 13. The Ḥ.S. (ii, 274) places his son, Mīr Mughūl, in charge, but otherwise agrees with the B.N.

Back

267

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.

Back

268

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.

Back

269

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.

Back

270

Cf. f. 4b and note. From Bābur’s special mention of it, it would seem not to be the usual road.

Back

271

The spelling of this name is uncertain. Variants are many. Concerning the tribe see T.R. p. 165 n.

Back

272

Niz̤āmu’d-dīn ‘Alī Barlās: see Gul-badan’s H.N. s. n. He served Bābur till the latter’s death.

Back

273

i. e. Ẕū’n-nūn or perhaps the garrison.

Back

274

i. e. down to Shaibānī’s destruction of Chaghatāī rule in Tāshkīnt in 1503 AD.

Back

275

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.

Back

276

This feint would take him from the Oxus.

Back

277

Tīrmīẕ to Ḥiṣār, 96m. (Réclus vi, 255).

Back

278

Ḥ.S. Wazr-āb valley. The usual route is up the Kām Rūd and over the Mūra pass to Sara-tāq. Cf. f. 81b.

Back

279

i. e. the Ḥiṣārī mentioned a few lines lower and on f. 99b. Nothing on f. 99b explains his cognomen.

Back

280

The road is difficult. Cf. f. 81b.

Back

281

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.)

Back

282

This pregnant phrase has been found difficult. It may express that Bābur assigned the sult̤āns 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.

Back

283

siyāsat. My translation is conjectural only.

Back

284

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.

Back

285

Presumably lower down the Qūndūz Water.

Back

286

aūz pādshāhī u mīrzālārīdīn artīb.

Back

287

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.

Back

288

i. e. Sayyid Muḥammad ‘Alī. See f. 15 n. to Sherīm. Khwāja Changāl lies 14 m. below Tāliqān on the Tāliqān Water. (Erskine.)

Back

289

f. 27b, second.

Back

290

The first was circa 895 AH. -1490 AD. Cf. f. 27b.

Back

291

Bābur’s wording suggests that their common homage was the cause of Badī‘u’z-zamān’s displeasure but see f. 41.

Back

292

The Mīrzā had grown up with Ḥiṣārīs. Cf. Ḥ.S. ii, 270.

Back

293

As the husband of one of the six Badakhshī Begīms, he was closely connected with local ruling houses. See T.R. p. 107.

Back

294

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.

Back

295

Bū yūq tūr, i. e. This is not to be.

Back

296

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.

Back

297

i. e. he claimed sanctuary.

Back

298

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.

Back

299

i. e. over the Aītmak Pass. Cf. f. 49.

Back

300

Ḥai. MS. ārālighīgha. Elph. MS. ārāl, island.

Back

301

See f. 179b for Binā’ī. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Mīrzā Khwārizmī is the author of the Shaibānī-nāma.

Back

302

Elph. MS. f. 27; W. – i-B. I.O. 215 f. 30b and 217 f. 25; Mems. p. 42.

Back

303

i. e. Circassian. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ (Sh.N. Vambéry p. 276 l. 58) speaks of other Aūzbegs using Chirkas swords.

Back

304

aīrtā yāzīghā. My translation is conjectural. Aīrtā implies i. a. foresight. Yāzīghā allows a pun at the expense of the sult̤āns; 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.)

Back

305

aūmāq, to amuse a child in order to keep it from crying.

Back

306

i. e. with Khwāja Yahya presumably. See f. 38.

Back

307

This man is mentioned also in the Tawārikh-i-guzīda Naṣratnāma B.M. Or. 3222 f. 124b.

Back

308

Ḥ.S., on the last day of Ramẓān (June 28th. 1497 AD.).

Back

309

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.

Back

310

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.

Back

311

Qāsim feared to go amongst the Mughūls lest he should meet retaliatory death. Cf. f. 99b.

Back

312

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.

Back

313

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.

Back

314

Cf. f. 48.

Back

315

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.

Back

316

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.

Back

317

Of this nick-name several interpretations are allowed by the dictionaries.

Back

318

See Schuyler i, 268 for an account of this beautiful Highland village.

Back

319

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.

Back

320

bāghīshlāb tūr. Cf. f. 34 note to bāghīsh dā.

Back

321

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.

Back

322

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.

Back

323

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.

Back

324

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.

Back

325

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.

Back

326

qūsh-khāna. As the place was outside the walls, it may be a good hawking ground and not a falconry.

Back

327

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.

Back

328

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.

Back

329

See f. 48b.

Back

330

i. e. Chūpān-ātā; see f. 45 and note.

Back

331

Aūghlāqchī, the Grey Wolfer of f. 22.

Back

332

A sobriquet, the suppliant or perhaps something having connection with musk. Ḥ.S. ii, 278, son of Ḥ.D.

Back

333

i. e. grandson (of Muḥammad Sīghal). Cf. f. 39.

Back

334

This seeming sobriquet may show the man’s trade. Kāl is a sort of biscuit; qāshūq may mean a spoon.

Back

335

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.

Back

336

“It was the end of September or beginning of October” (Erskine).

Back

337

awī u kīpa yīrlār. Awī is likely to represent kibitkas. For kīpa yīr, see Zenker p. 782.

Back

338

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.

Back

339

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”.

Back

340

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.

Back

341

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.

Back

342

i. e. of Muḥammad. See Z̤.N. ii, 193.

Back

343

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.

Back

344

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.

Back

345

Ma‘lūm aīmās kīm mūncha paidā būlmīsh būlghāī; an idiomatic phrase.

Back

346

d. 333 AH. (944 AD.). See D’Herbélot art. Mātridī p. 572.

Back

347

See D’Herbélot art. Aschair p. 124.

Back

348

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.

Back

349

Cf. f. 3b and n. 1.

Back

350

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.

Back

351

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.

Back

352

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.

Back

353

See Schuyler i, 286 on the apportionment of water to Samarkand and Bukhārā.

Back

354

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.

Back

355

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).

Back

356

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.

Back

357

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.

Back

358

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.

Back

359

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.’”

Back

360

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.

Back

361

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.

Back

362

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.

Back

363

See infra f. 48 and note.

Back

364

The Plane-tree Garden. This seems to be Clavijo’s Bayginar, laid out shortly before he saw it (Markham p. 136).

Back

365

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.

Back

366

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.

Back

367

Hindūstān would make a better climax here than Samarkand does.

Back

368

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.

Back

369

i. e. the Black Stone (ka’ba) at Makkah to which Musalmāns turn in prayer.

Back

370

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.

Back

371

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.

Back

372

a grandson of Chīngīz Khān, d. 663 AH. (1265 AD.). The cognomen Aīl-khānī (Īl-khānī) may mean Khān of the Tribe.

Back

373

Ḥarūnu’r-rashīd’s second son; d. 218 AH. (833 AD.).

Back

374

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.)

Back

375

Cf. index s. n. tāsh.

Back

376

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.

Back

377

Steingass, any support for the back in sitting, a low wall in front of a house. See Vullers p. 148 and Burhān-i-qāt̤i‘; p. 119. Perhaps a dado.

Back

378

beg u begāt, bāgh u bāghcha.

Back

379

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).

Back

380

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.

Back

381

Now a common plan indeed! See Schuyler i, 173.

Back

382

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.

Back

383

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.]

Back

384

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.

Back

385

Cf. f. 40. There it is located at one yīghāch and here at 3 kurohs from the town.

Back

386

t̤aur. Cf. Zenker s. n. I understand it to lie, as Khān Yūrtī did, in a curve of the river.

Back

387

162 m. by rail.

Back

388

Cf. f. 3.

Back

389

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.

Back

390

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.

Back

391

48 m. 3 fur. by way of the Aītmāk Pass (mod. Takhta Qarachi), and, Réclus (vi, 256) Buz-gala-khāna, Goat-house.

Back

392

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.

Back

393

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.

Back

394

The Tāq-i-kisrī, below Bāghdād, is 105 ft. high, 84 ft. span and 150 ft. in depth (Erskine).

Back

395

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.

Back

396

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.

Back

397

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.

Back

398

94 m. 6-1/2 fur. via Jām (Kostenko i, 115.)

Back

399

See Appendix B.

Back

400

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.

Back

401

Cf. f. 45.

Back

402

By abjad the words ‘Abbās kasht yield 853. The date of the murder was Ramẓān 9, 853 AH. (Oct. 27th. 1449 AD.).

Back

403

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 Niz̤āmī 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-lat̤īf constantly repeated the couplet, after he had murdered his father. [See also Daulat Shāh (Browne p. 356 and p. 366.) H.B.]

Back

404

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.

Back

405

This overstates the time; dates shew 1 yr. 1 mth. and a few days.

Back

406

i. e. The Khān of the Mughūls, Bābur’s uncle.

Back

407

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.

Back

408

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; Rabāt̤ik-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.

Back

409

i. e. his own, Qūtlūq-nigār Khānīm and hers, Aīsān-daulat Begīm, with perhaps other widows of his father, probably Shāh Sult̤ān Begīm.

Back

410

Cf. f. 16 for almost verbatim statements.

Back

411

Blacksmith’s Dale. Ahangarān appears corrupted in modern maps to Angren. See Ḥ.S. ii, 293 for Khwānd-amīr’s wording of this episode.

Back

412

Cf. f. 1b and Kostenko i, 101.

Back

413

i. e. Khān Uncle (Mother’s brother).

Back

414

n. w. of the Sang ferry over the Sīr.

Back

415

perhaps, messenger of good tidings.

Back

416

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.

Back

417

Bābur’s (step-)grandmother, co-widow with Aīsān-daulat of Yūnas Khān and mother of Aḥmad and Maḥmud Chaghatāī.

Back

418

Here the narrative picks up the thread of Khusrau Shāh’s affairs, dropped on f. 44.

Back

419

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.

Back

420

ārīqlār; this the annotator of the Elph. MS. has changed to āshlīq, provisions, corn.

Back

421

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.

Back

422

Bast (Bost) is on the left bank of the Halmand.

Back

423

Cf. f. 56b.

Back

424

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.

Back

425

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.

Back

426

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.

Back

427

i. e. Aḥrārī. He had been dead some 10 years. The despoilment of his family is mentioned on f. 23b.

Back

428

fatratlār, here those due to the deaths of Aḥmad and Maḥmūd with their sequel of unstable government in Samarkand.

Back

429

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.

Back

430

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.

Back

431

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.

Back

432

bīr yārīm yīl. Dates shew this to mean six months. It appears a parallel expression to Pers. hasht-yak, one-eighth.

Back

433

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).

Back

434

i. e. in Samarkand.

Back

435

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.

Back

436

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.

Back

437

The voluntary prayer, offered when the sun has well risen, fits the context.

Back

438

I understand that the obeisance was made in the Gate-house, between the inner and outer doors.

Back

439

This seeming sobriquet may be due to eloquence or to good looks.

Back

440

qarā tīyāq. Cf. f. 63 where black bludgeons are used by a red rabble.

Back

441

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.

Back

442

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.

Back

443

Cf. f. 4b and App. A. as to the position of Akhsī.

Back

444

bārīnī qīrdīlār. After this statement the five exceptions are unexpected; Bābur’s wording is somewhat confused here.

Back

445

i. e. in Hindūstān.

Back

446

Taṃbal would be the competitor for the second place.

Back

447

47 m. 4-1/2 fur.

Back

448

Bābur had been about two lunar years absent from Andijān but his loss of rule was of under 16 months.

Back

449

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.

Back

450

Musalmān here seems to indicate mental contrast with Pagan practices or neglect of Musalmān observances amongst Mughūls.

Back

451

i. e. of his advisors and himself.

Back

452

Cf. f. 34.

Back

453

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).

Back

454

Chūnāq may indicate the loss of one ear.

Back

455

Būqāq, amongst other meanings, has that of one who lies in ambush.

Back

456

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).

Back

457

I surmise Aīlāīsh to be a local name of the Qarā-daryā affluent of the Sīr.

Back

458

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.

Back

459

Tūqā appears to have been the son of a T̤aghāī, perhaps of Sherīm; his name may imply blood-relationship.

Back

460

For the verb awīmāq, to trepan, see f. 67 note 5.

Back

461

The Fr. map of 1904 shews a hill suiting Bābur’s location of this Hill of Pleasure.

Back

462

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.

Back

463

Elph. MS. f. 47b; W. – i-B. I.O. 215 f. 53 and 217 f. 43; Mems. p. 70.

Back

464

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.

Back

465

mod. Mazy, on the main Aūsh-Kāshghar road.

Back

466

āb-duzd; de C. i, 144, prise d’eau.

Back

467

This simile seems the fruit of experience in Hindūstān. See f. 333, concerning Chānderi.

Back

468

These two Mughūls rebelled in 914 AH. with Sl. Qulī Chūnāq (T.R. s. n.).

Back

469

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.

Back

470

chasht-gāh; midway between sunrise and noon.

Back

471

t̤aurī; because providing prisoners for exchange.

Back

472

shakh tūtūlūr īdī, perhaps a palisade.

Back

473

i. e. from Ḥiṣār where he had placed him in 903 AH.

Back

474

qūba yūzlūq (f. 6b and note 4). The Turkmān features would be a maternal inheritance.

Back

475

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.

Back

476

namāz aūtār īdī. I understand some irony from this (de Meynard’s Dict. s. n. aūtmāq).

Back

477

The mat̤la‘ of poems serve as an index of first lines.

Back

478

Cf. f. 30.

Back

479

Cf. f. 37b.

Back

480

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 * * *.

Back

481

pītīldī; W. – i-B. navishta shud, words indicating the use by Bābur of a written record.

Back

482

Cf. f. 6b and note and f. 17 and note.

Back

483

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).

Back

484

Cf. f. 6b and note.

Back

485

tūlkī var. tūlkū, the yellow fox. Following this word the Ḥai. MS. has u dar kamīn dūr instead of u rangīn dūr.

Back

486

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.

Back

487

Here a pun on ‘ajab may be read.

Back

488

Cf. f. 15, note to T̤aghāī.

Back

489

Apparently not the usual Kīndīr-līk pass but one n.w. of Kāsān.

Back

490

A ride of at least 40 miles, followed by one of 20 to Kāsān.

Back

491

Cf. f. 72 and f. 72b. Tīlba would seem to have left Taṃbal.

Back

492

Taṃbalnīng qarāsī.

Back

493

i. e. the Other (Mid-afternoon) Prayer.

Back

494

ātīnīng būīnīnī qātīb. Qātmāq has also the here-appropriate meaning of to stiffen.

Back

495

aīlīk qūshmāq, i. e. Bābur’s men with the Kāsān garrison. But the two W. – i-B. write merely dast burd and dast kardan.

Back

496

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.

Back

497

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.

Back

498

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.

Back

499

Cf. f. 54 foot.

Back

500

Cf. f. 20. She may have come from Samarkand and ‘Alī’s household or from Kesh and the Tarkhān households.

Back

501

Cf. f. 26 l. 2 for the same phrase.

Back

502

He is the author of the Shaibānī-nāma.

Back

503

dāng and fils (infra) are small copper coins.

Back

504

Cf. f. 25 l. 1 and note 1.

Back

505

Probably the poet again; he had left Harāt and was in Samarkand (Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 34 l. 14).

Back

506

From what follows, this Mughūl advance seems a sequel to a Tarkhān invitation.

Back

507

By omitting the word Mīr the Turkī text has caused confusion between this father and son (Index s. nn.).

Back

508

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.

Back

509

For būlghār, rendezvous, see also f. 78 l. 2 fr. ft.

Back

510

25 m. only; the halts were due probably to belated arrivals.

Back

511

Some of his ties would be those of old acquaintance in Ḥiṣār with ‘Alī’s father’s begs, now with him in Samarkand.

Back

512

Point to point, some 90 m. but further by road.

Back

513

Bū waqi‘ būlghāch, manifestly ironical.

Back

514

Sangzār to Aūrā-tīpā, by way of the hills, some 50 miles.

Back

515

The Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 60, confirms this.

Back

516

Cf. f. 74b.

Back

517

Macham and Awīghūr, presumably.

Back

518

gūzlār tūz tūtī, i. e. he was blinded for some treachery to his hosts.

Back

519

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.

Back

520

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.

Back

521

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.

Back

522

He tried vainly to get the town defended. “Would to God Bābur Mīrzā were here!” he is reported as saying, by Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ.

Back

523

Perhaps it is for the play of words on ‘Alī and ‘Alī’s life (jān) that this man makes his sole appearance here.

Back

524

i. e. rich man or merchant, but Bī (infra) is an equivalent of Beg.

Back

525

Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ, invoking curses on such a mother, mentions that Zuhra was given to a person of her own sort.

Back

526

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.

Back

527

Harāt might be his destination but the Ḥ.S. names Makka. Some dismissals towards Khurāsān may imply pilgrimage to Meshhed.

Back

528

Used also by Bābur’s daughter, Gul-badan (l.c. f. 31).

Back

529

Cut off by alien lands and weary travel.

Back

530

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.

Back

531

Amongst Turks and Mughūls, gifts were made by nines.

Back

532

Ḥiṣār was his earlier home.

Back

533

Many of these will have been climbed in order to get over places impassable at the river’s level.

Back

534

Schuyler quotes a legend of the lake. He and Kostenko make it larger.

Back

535

The second occasion was when he crossed from Sūkh for Kābul in 910 AH. (fol. 120).

Back

536

This name appears to indicate a Command of 10,000 (Bretschneider’s Mediæval Researches, i, 112).

Back

537

It seems likely that the cloth was soiled. Cf. f. 25 and Hughes Dict. of Islām s. n. Eating.

Back

538

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.

Back

539

He was made a Tarkhān by diploma of Shaibānī (Ḥ.S. ii, 306, l. 2).

Back

540

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.

Back

541

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.

Back

542

This arrival shews that Shaibānī expected to stay in Samarkand. He had been occupying Turkistān under The Chaghatāī Khān.

Back

543

‘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.

Back

544

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.

Back

545

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.

Back

546

Shawwāl 906 AH. began April 20th. 1501.

Back

547

From the Bū-stān, Graf ed. p. 55, l. 246.

Back

548

Sīkīz Yīldūz. See Chardin’s Voyages, v, 136 and Table; also Stanley Lane Poole’s Bābur, p. 56.

Back

549

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.

Back

550

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.

Back

551

This subterranean water-course, issuing in a flowing well (Erskine) gave its name to a bastion (Ḥ.S. ii, 300).

Back

552

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).

Back

553

Kostenko, i, 344, would make the rounds 9 m.

Back

554

bīr yūz ātliqnīng ātinī nāwak aūqī bīla 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.

Back

555

The Sh. N. gives the reverse side of the picture, the plenty enjoyed by the besiegers.

Back

556

He may have been attached to the tomb of Khwāja ‘Abdu’l-lāh Anṣārī in Harāt.

Back

557

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.

Back

558

Five-villages, on the main Khujand-Tāshkīnt road.

Back

559

turk, as on f. 28 of Khusrau Shāh.

Back

560

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.

Back

561

tāshlāb. The Sh. N. places these desertions as after four months of siege.

Back

562

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.

Back

563

This laudatory comment I find nowhere but in the Ḥai. Codex.

Back

564

There is some uncertainty about the names of those who left.

Back

565

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).

Back

566

The first seems likely to be a relation of Niz̤āmu’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).

Back

567

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.

Back

568

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.

Back

569

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.

Back

570

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).

Back

571

Ḥai. MS. qāqāsrāq; Elph. MS. yānasrāq.

Back

572

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.

Back

573

She was the wife of the then Governor of Aūrā-tīpā, Muḥ. Ḥusain Dūghlāt.

Back

574

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.

Back

575

This name has several variants. The village lies, in a valley-bottom, on the Aq-sū and on a road. See Kostenko, i, 119.

Back

576

She had been divorced from Shaibānī in order to allow him to make legal marriage with her niece, Khān-zāda.

Back

577

Amongst the variants of this name, I select the modern one. Macha is the upper valley of the Zar-afshān.

Back

578

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).

Back

579

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.

Back

580

Amongst those thus leaving seem to have been Qaṃbar-‘alī (f. 99b).

Back

581

Cf. f. 107 foot.

Back

582

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).

Back

583

Cf. f. 4b.

Back

584

Point to point, some 50 miles.

Back

585

Āhangarān-julgasī, a name narrowed on maps to Angren (valley).

Back

586

Faut shūd Nuyān. The numerical value of these words is 907. Bābur when writing, looks back 26 years to the death of this friend.

Back

587

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.

Back

588

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.

Back

589

nīma. The First W. – i-B. (I.O. 215 f. 81 l. 8) writes tawārīkh, annals.

Back

590

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.

Back

591

The Ḥai. MS. points in the last line as though punning on Khān and Jān, but appears to be wrong.

Back

592

For an account of the waste of crops, the Sh. N. should be seen (p. 162 and 180).

Back

593

I think this refers to last year’s move (f. 94 foot).

Back

594

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).

Back

595

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.

Back

596

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).

Back

597

The libation was of fermented mares'-milk.

Back

598

lit. their one way.

Back

599

Cf. T.R. p. 308.

Back

600

Elph. MS. f. 74; W. – i-B. I.O. 215 f. 83 and 217 f. 66; Mems. p. 104.

Back

601

It may be noted that Bābur calls his mother’s brothers, not t̤aghāī but dādā father. I have not met with an instance of his saying ‘My t̤aghāī’ as he says ‘My dādā.’ Cf. index s. n. taghāī.

Back

602

kūrūnūsh qīlīb, reflective from kūrmak, to see.

Back

603

A rider’s metaphor.

Back

604

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.

Back

605

Gulistān, cap. viii, Maxim 12 (Platts’ ed. p. 147).

Back

606

This backward count is to 890 AH. when Aḥmad fled from cultivated lands (T.R. p. 113).

Back

607

It becomes clear that Aḥmad had already been asked to come to Tāshkīnt.

Back

608

Cf. f. 96b for his first departure without help.

Back

609

Yagha (Yaghma) is not on the Fr. map of 1904, but suitably located is Turbat (Tomb) to which roads converge.

Back

610

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.

Back

611

kūrūshkāīlār. Cf. Redhouse who gives no support for reading the verb kūrmak as meaning to embrace.

Back

612

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.

Back

613

The wording suggests that the decoration is in chain-stitch, pricked up and down through the stuff.

Back

614

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.

Back

615

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.

Back

616

Vullers, clava sex foliis.

Back

617

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).

Back

618

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).

Back

619

lit. saw the count (dīm). Cf. f. 100 and note concerning the count. Using a Persian substitute, the Kehr-Ilminsky text writes san (kūrdīlār).

Back

620

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.

Back

621

Alāī-līq aūrchīnī. I understand the march to have been along the northern slope of the Little Alāī, south of Aūsh.

Back

622

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.

Back

623

He would be one of the hereditary Khwājas of Andijān (f. 16).

Back

624

For several battle-cries see Th. Radloff’s Réceuils etc. p. 322.

Back

625

qāshqa ātlīq kīshī. For a parallel phrase see f. 92b.

Back

626

Bābur does not explain how the imbroglio was cleared up; there must have been a dramatic moment when this happened.

Back

627

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.

Back

628

Ḥai. MS. sāīrt kīshī. Muḥ. ‘Alī is likely to be the librarian (cf. index s. n.).

Back

629

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.

Back

630

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.

Back

631

bīrk ārīgh, doubly strong by its trench and its current.

Back

632

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.

Back

633

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.

Back

634

So too ‘Piero of Cosimo’ and ‘Lorenzo of Piero of the Medici.’ Cf. the names of five men on f. 114.

Back

635

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.

Back

636

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.

Back

637

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.

Back

638

dūwulgha būrkī; i. e. the soft cap worn under the iron helm.

Back

639

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.

Back

640

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).

Back

641

The text here seems to say that the three men were on foot, but this is negatived by the context.

Back

642

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.

Back

643

Elph. MS. yakhshī. Zenker explains bakhshī (pay-master) as meaning also a Court-physician.

Back

644

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.

Back

645

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).

Back

646

Presumably Jahāngīr’s.

Back

647

Here his father was killed (f. 6b). Cf. App. A.

Back

648

‘Alī-dost’s son (f. 79b).

Back

649

The sobriquet Khīz may mean Leaper, or Impetuous.

Back

650

kūīlāk, syn. kūnglāk, a shirt not opening at the breast. It will have been a short garment since the under-vest was visible.

Back

651

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.

Back

652

aūpchīnlīk. Vambéry, gepanzert; Shaw, four horse-shoes and their nails; Steingass, aūpcha-khāna, a guard-house.

Back

653

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.

Back

654

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.

Back

655

Cf. f. 96b and Fr. Map for route over the Kīndīr-tau.

Back

656

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).

Back

657

Perhaps reeds for a raft. Sh. N. p. 258, Sāl aūchūn bār qāmīsh, reeds are there also for rafts.

Back

658

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.

Back

659

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).

Back

660

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.

Back

661

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.

Back

662

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.

Back

663

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).

Back

664

chāpān, the ordinary garment of Central Asia (Shaw).

Back

665

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.

Back

666

i. e. with Khusrau’s power shaken by Aūzbeg attack, made in the winter of 909 AH. (Shaibānī-nāma cap. lviii).

Back

667

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.

Back

668

var. Chaqānīān and Saghānīān. The name formerly described the whole of the Ḥiṣār territory (Erskine).

Back

669

the preacher by whom the Khut̤ba is read (Erskine).

Back

670

bī bāqī or bī Bāqī; perhaps a play of words with the double meaning expressed in the above translation.

Back

671

Amongst these were widows and children of Bābur’s uncle, Maḥmūd (f. 27b).

Back

672

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.

Back

673

Cf. f. 67.

Back

674

Bābur’s loss of rule in Farghāna and Samarkand.

Back

675

about 7 miles south of Aībak, on the road to Sar-i-tāgh (mountain-head, Erskine).

Back

676

viz. the respective fathers, Maḥmūd and ‘Umar Shaikh. The arrangement was made in 895 AH. (1490 AD.).

Back

677

Gulistān cap. i, story 3. Part of this quotation is used again on f. 183.

Back

678

Maḥmūd’s sons under whom Bāqī had served.

Back

679

Uncles of all degrees are included as elder brethren, cousins of all degrees, as younger ones.

Back

680

Presumably the ferries; perhaps the one on the main road from the north-east which crosses the river at Fort Murgh-āb.

Back

681

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”.

Back

682

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.

Back

683

From Taṃbal, to put down whom he had quitted his army near Balkh (Sh. N. cap. lix).

Back

684

This, one of the many Red-rivers, flows from near Kāhmard and joins the Andar-āb water near Dūshī.

Back

685

A garī is twenty-four minutes.

Back

686

Qorān, Surat iii, verse 25; Sale’s Qorān, ed. 1825, i, 56.

Back

687

Cf. f. 82.

Back

688

viz. Bāī-sanghar, bowstrung, and Mas‘ūd, blinded.

Back

689

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).

Back

690

Cf. T. R. p. 134 n. and 374 n.

Back

691

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.

Back

692

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).

Back

693

var. Ūpīān, a few miles north of Chārikār.

Back

694

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.

Back

695

The lines are in the Preface to the Anwār-i-suhailī (Lights of Canopus).

Back

696

“Die Kirghis-qazzāq drücken die Sonnen-höhe in Pikenaus” (von Schwarz, p. 124).

Back

697

Presumably, dark with shade, as in qarā-yīghāch, the hard-wood elm (f. 47b and note to narwān).

Back

698

i. e. Sayyid Muḥammad ‘Alī, the door-ward. These būlāks seem likely to have been groups of 1,000 fighting-men (Turki Mīng).

Back

699

In-the-water and Water-head.

Back

700

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.

Back

701

i. e. where justice was administered, at this time, outside Bābur’s tent.

Back

702

They would pass Ajar and make for the main road over the Dandān-shikan Pass.

Back

703

The clansmen may have obeyed Aḥmad’s orders in thus holding up the families.

Back

704

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.

Back

705

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.

Back

706

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).

Back

707

Presumably that on which the Bālā-ḥiṣār stood, the glacis of a few lines further.

Back

708

Cf. f. 130.

Back

709

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).

Back

710

Some 9 m. north of Kābul on the road to Āq-sarāī.

Back

711

The Ḥai. MS. (only) writes First Rabī but the Second better suits the near approach of winter.

Back

712

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.

Back

713

f. 1b where Farghāna is said to be on the limit of cultivation.

Back

714

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.

Back

715

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.

Back

716

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.

Back

717

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.

Back

718

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).

Back

719

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.

Back

720

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.

Back

721

aūlūgh kūl; some 3 m. round in Erskine’s time; mapped as a swamp in S.A. War p. 288.

Back

722

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).

Back

723

i. e. the place made holy by an impress of saintly foot-steps.

Back

724

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.

Back

725

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.

Back

726

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).

Back

727

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.)

Back

728

All MSS. do not mention Kāshghar.

Back

729

Khīta (Cathay) is Northern China; Chīn (infra) is China; Rūm is Turkey and particularly the provinces near Trebizond (Erskine).

Back

730

300 % to 400 % (Erskine).

Back

731

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.

Back

732

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?

Back

733

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).

Back

734

i. e. the seeds of pinus Gerardiana.

Back

735

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.

Back

736

a large green fruit, shaped something like a citron; also a large sort of cucumber (Erskine).

Back

737

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).

Back

738

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).

Back

739

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).

Back

740

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).

Back

741

Index s. n.

Back

742

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.

Back

743

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).

Back

744

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.

Back

745

Perhaps through Jālmīsh into Saighān.

Back

746

i. e. they are closed.

Back

747

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.

Back

748

Farmūl, about the situation of which Mr. Erskine was in doubt, is now marked in maps, Ūrghūn being its principal village.

Back

749

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.)

Back

750

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.

Back

751

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.

Back

752

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).

Back

753

Chaupāra seems, from f. 148b, to be the Chapari of Survey Map 1889. Bābur’s Dasht is modern Dāman.

Back

754

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).

Back

755

The Āyīn-i-akbarī account of Kābul both uses and supplements the Bābur-nāma.

Back

756

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).

Back

757

See Appendix E, On Nagarahāra.

Back

758

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.

Back

759

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).

Back

760

Masson was shewn “Chaghatai castles”, attributed to Bābur (iii, 174).

Back

761

Dark-turn, perhaps, as in Shibr-tū, Jāl-tū, etc. (f. 130b and note to Shibr-tū).

Back

762

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.

Back

763

Appendix E, On Nagarahāra.

Back

764

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.).

Back

765

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.

Back

766

Presumably to his son, Humāyūn, then governor in Badakhshān; Bukhārā also was under Bābur’s rule.

Back

767

Here, qārī, yards. The dimensions 10 by 10, are those enjoined for places of ablution.

Back

768

Presumably those of the tūqūz-rūd, supra. Cf. Appendix E, On Nagarahāra.

Back

769

White-mountain; Pushtū, Spīn-ghur (or ghar).

Back

770

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).

Back

771

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.

Back

772

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.

Back

773

See Masson, iii, 197 and 289. Both in Pashāī and Lamghānī, lām means fort.

Back

774

See Appendix F, On the name Dara-i-nūr.

Back

775

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).

Back

776

f. 154.

Back

777

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.

Back

778

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.

Back

779

Appendix G, On the names of two Nūrī wines.

Back

780

This practice Bābur viewed with disgust, the hog being an impure animal according to Muḥammadan Law (Erskine).

Back

781

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 Sult̤ān 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.

Back

782

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.

Back

783

karanj, coriandrum sativum.

Back

784

i. e. treat her corpse as that of an infidel (Erskine).

Back

785

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.

Back

786

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 [some] maps and Raverty’s Bājaur routes.)

Back

787

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.

Back

788

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).

Back

789

Kāma might have classed better under Nīngnahār of which it was a dependency.

Back

790

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).

Back

791

Kāfirwash; they were Kāfirs converted to Muḥammadanism.

Back

792

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.

Back

793

rūba-i-parwān, pteromys inornatus, the large, red flying-squirrel (Blandford’s Fauna of British India, Mammalia, p. 363).

Back

794

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).

Back

795

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.

Back

796

Bartavelle’s Greek-partridge, tetrao- or perdrix-rufus [f. 279 and Mems. p. 320 n.].

Back

797

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.

Back

798

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).

Back

799

Index s. n. Bābur-nāma, date of composition; also f. 131.

Back

800

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).

Back

801

So too when, because of them, Leech and Lord turned back, re infectâ.

Back

802

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).

Back

803

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.

Back

804

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.

Back

805

Presumably this is the grass of the millet, the growth before the ear, on which grazing is allowed (Elphinstone, i, 400; Burnes, p. 237).

Back

806

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.

Back

807

West might be more exact, since some of the group are a little north, others a little south of the latitude of Kābul.

Back

808

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).

Back

809

The Pamghān range. These are the villages every traveller celebrates. Masson’s and Vigne’s illustrations depict them well.

Back

810

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).

Back

811

Khwāja Maudūd of Chisht, Khwāja Khāwand Sa‘īd and the Khwāja of the Running-sands (Elph. MS. f. 104b, marginal note).

Back

812

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).

Back

813

The numerical value of these words gives 925 (Erskine). F. 246b et seq. for the expedition.

Back

814

f. 178. I.O. MS. No. 724, Haft-iqlīm f. 135 (Ethé, p. 402); Rieu, pp. 21a, 1058b.

Back

815

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.

Back

816

aīkān dūr. Sabuk-tīgīn, d. 387 AH. -997 AD., was the father of Sl. Maḥmūd Ghaznawī, d. 421 AH. -1030 AD.

Back

817

d. 602 AH. -1206 AD.

Back

818

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).

Back

819

The Garden; the tombs of more eminent Muṣalmāns are generally in gardens (Erskine). See Vigne’s illustrations, pp. 133, 266.

Back

820

i. e. the year now in writing. The account of the expedition, Bābur’s first into Hindūstān, begins on f. 145.

Back

821

i. e. the countries groupable as Khurāsān.

Back

822

For picture and account of the dam, see Vigne, pp. 138, 202.

Back

823

f. 295b.

Back

824

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.

Back

825

R.’s Notes s. n. Zurmut.

Back

826

The question of the origin of the Farmūlī has been written of by several writers; perhaps they were Turks of Persia, Turks and Tājīks.

Back

827

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.

Back

828

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).

Back

829

būghūzlārīghā furṣat būlmās; i. e. to kill them in the lawful manner, while pronouncing the Bi’smi’llāh.

Back

830

This completes the bulūks of Kābul viz. Badr-aū (Tag-aū), Nūr-valley, Chaghān-sarāī, Kāma and Ālā-sāī.

Back

831

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).

Back

832

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).

Back

833

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.)

Back

834

nāzū, perhaps cupressus torulosa (Brandis, p.693).

Back

835

f. 276.

Back

836

A laborious geographical note of Mr. Erskine’s is here regretfully left behind, as now needless (Mems. p. 152).

Back

837

Here, mainly wild-sheep and wild-goats, including mār-khẉār.

Back

838

Perhaps, no conifers; perhaps none of those of the contrasted hill-tract.

Back

839

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.

Back

840

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.

Back

841

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).

Back

842

f. 135b note to Ghūr-bund.

Back

843

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.

Back

844

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.

Back

845

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).

Back

846

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).

Back

847

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.

Back

848

The Parwān or Hindū-kush pass, concerning the winds of which see f. 128.

Back

849

tūrnā u qarqara; the second of which is the Hindī būglā, heron, egret ardea gazetta, the furnisher of the aigrette of commerce.

Back

850

The aūqār is ardea cinerea, the grey heron; the qarqara is ardea gazetta, the egret. Qūt̤ān 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.

Back

851

giz, the short-flight arrow.

Back

852

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.

Back

853

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.

Back

854

For Tīmūrids who may have immigrated the fowlers see Raverty’s Notes p. 579 and his Appendix p. 22.

Back

855

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.

Back

856

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.

Back

857

Much trouble would have been spared to himself and his translators, if Bābur had known a lobster-pot.

Back

858

The fish, it is to be inferred, came down the fall into the pond.

Back

859

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?

Back

860

Elph. MS. f. 111; W. – i-B. I.O. 215 f. 116b and 217 f. 97b; Mems. p. 155; Méms. i, 318.

Back

861

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.”

Back

862

tiyūl-dīk in all the Turkī MSS. Ilminsky, de Courteille and Zenker, yitūl-dīk, Turkī, a fief.

Back

863

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).

Back

864

Saifī dūr, qalamī aīmās, i. e. tax is taken by force, not paid on a written assessment.

Back

865

khar-wār, about 700 lbs Averdupois (Erskine). Cf. Āyīn-i-akbarī (Jarrett, ii, 394).

Back

866

Niz̤āmu’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).

Back

867

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.

Back

868

The Takht-pass, one on which from times immemorial, toll (nirkh) has been taken.

Back

869

khāt̤ir-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.

Back

870

Bhīra being in Shāhpūr, this Khān’s daryā will be the Jehlam.

Back

871

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.

Back

872

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.

Back

873

These are they whose families Nāṣir Mīrzā shepherded out of Kābul later (f. 154, f. 155).

Back

874

Bird’s-dome, opposite the mouth of the Kūnār-water (S.A. War, Map p. 64).

Back

875

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.

Back

876

mod. Jām-rūd (Jām-torrent), presumably.

Back

877

G. of I. xx, 125 and Cunningham’s Ancient History i, 80. Bābur saw the place in 925 AH. (f. 232b).

Back

878

Cunningham, p. 29. Four ancient sites, not far removed from one another, bear this name, Bīgrām, viz. those near Hūpīān, Kābul, Jalālābād and Pashāwar.

Back

879

Cunningham, i, 79.

Back

880

Perhaps a native of Kamarī on the Indus, but kamarī is a word of diverse application (index s. n.).

Back

881

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.

Back

882

For the route here see Masson, i, 117 and Colquhoun’s With the Kuram Field-force p. 48.

Back

883

The Ḥai. MS. writes this Dilah-zāk.

Back

884

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).

Back

885

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.

Back

886

This barbarous custom has always prevailed amongst the Tartar conquerors of Asia (Erskine). For examples under ‘ see Raverty’s Notes p. 137.

Back

887

For a good description of the road from Kohāt to Thāl see Bellew’s Mission p. 104.

Back

888

F. 88b has the same phrase about the doubtful courage of one Sayyidī Qarā.

Back

889

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.

Back

890

Perhaps he connived at recovery of cattle by those raided already.

Back

891

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).

Back

892

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.

Back

893

This will mean, none of the artificial runlets familiar where Bābur had lived before getting to know Hindūstān.

Back

894

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).

Back

895

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.

Back

896

From this it would seem that the alternative roads were approached by one in common.

Back

897

tūmshūq, a bird’s bill, used here, as in Selsey-bill, for the naze (nose), or snout, the last spur, of a range.

Back

898

Here these words may be common nouns.

Back

899

Nū-roz, the feast of the old Persian New-year (Erskine); it is the day on which the Sun enters Aries.

Back

900

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.

Back

901

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).

Back

902

Index s. n.

Back

903

Vigne, p. 241.

Back

904

This name can be translated “He turns not back” or “He stops not”.

Back

905

i. e. five from Bīlah.

Back

906

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.)

Back

907

This seems to be the sub-district of Qandahār, Dūkī or Dūgī.

Back

908

khar-gāh, a folding tent on lattice frame-work, perhaps a khibitka.

Back

909

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.

Back

910

f. 121.

Back

911

This may mean, what irrigation has not used.

Back

912

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).

Back

913

The usual dryness of the bed may have resulted from the irrigation of much land some 12 miles from Ghaznī.

Back

914

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.

Back

915

This disastrous expedition, full of privation and loss, had occupied some four months (T.R. p. 201).

Back

916

f. 145b.

Back

917

f. 133b and Appendix F.

Back

918

They were located in Mandrāwar in 926 AH. (f. 251).

Back

919

This was done, manifestly, with the design of drawing after the families their fighting men, then away with Bābur.

Back

920

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).

Back

921

Survey Map 1889, Sadda. The Rāgh-water flows n.w. into the Oxus (Amū).

Back

922

birk, a mountain stronghold; cf. f. 149b note to Birk (Barak).

Back

923

They were thus driven on from the Bārān-water (f. 154b).

Back

924

f. 126b.

Back

925

Ḥiṣār, presumably.

Back

926

Here “His Honour” translates Bābur’s clearly ironical honorific plural.

Back

927

These two sult̤āns, 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 sult̤āns 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.

Back

928

For the deaths of Taṃbal and Maḥmūd, mentioned in the above summary of Shaibāq Khān’s actions, see the Shaibānī-nāma, Vambéry, p. 323.

Back

929

Ḥ.S. ii, 323, for Khusrau Shāh’s character and death.

Back

930

f. 124.

Back

931

Khwāja-of-the-rhubarb, presumably a shrine near rhubarb-grounds (f. 129b).

Back

932

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.

Back

933

Elph. MS. f. 121b: W. – i-B. I.O. 215 f. 126 and 217 f. 106b; Mems. p. 169.

Back

934

tāgh-dāmanasī, presumably the Koh-dāman, and the garden will thus be the one of f. 136b.

Back

935

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.

Back

936

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.

Back

937

i. e. the fortieth day of mourning, when alms are given.

Back

938

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).

Back

939

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.

Back

940

Raverty’s Notes p. 690.

Back

941

bīr kitta tāsh ātīmī; var. bāsh ātīmī. If tāsh be right, the reference will probably be to the throw of a catapult.

Back

942

Here almost certainly, a drummer, because there were two tambours and because also Bābur uses ‘aūdī & ghachakī for the other meanings of t̤ambourchi, lutanist and guitarist. The word has found its way, as tambourgi, into Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage (Canto ii, lxxii. H. B.).

Back

943

Kābul-Ghaznī road (R.’s Notes index s. n.).

Back

944

var. Yārī. Tāzī is on the Ghaznī-Qalāt-i-ghilzāī road (R.’s Notes, Appendix p. 46).

Back

945

i. e. in Kābul and in the Trans-Himalayan country.

Back

946

These will be those against Bābur’s suzerainty done by their defence of Qalāt for Muqīm.

Back

947

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.).

Back

948

Turkī khachar is a camel or mule used for carrying personal effects. The word has been read by some scribes as khanjar, dagger.

Back

949

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).

Back

950

These transit or custom duties are so called because the dutiable articles are stamped with a t̤amghā, a wooden stamp.

Back

951

Perhaps this word is an equivalent of Persian goshī, a tax on cattle and beasts of burden.

Back

952

Bāqī was one only and not the head of the Lords of the Gate.

Back

953

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.

Back

954

It is near Ḥasan-abdāl (A. – i-A. Jarrett, ii, 324).

Back

955

For the farmān, f. 146b; for Gujūrs, G. of I.

Back

956

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.

Back

957

The repetition of aūq in this sentence can hardly be accidental.

Back

958

t̤aur [dara], which I take to be Turkī, round, complete.

Back

959

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).

Back

960

brochettes, meat cut into large mouthfuls, spitted and roasted.

Back

961

Perhaps he was officially an announcer; the word means also bearer of good news.

Back

962

yīlāng, without mail, as in the common phrase yīgīt yīlāng, a bare brave.

Back

963

aūpchīn, of horse and man (f. 113b and note).

Back

964

Manifestly Bābur means that he twice actually helped to collect the booty.

Back

965

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).

Back

966

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).

Back

967

i. e. prepared to fight.

Back

968

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).

Back

969

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.

Back

970

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).

Back

971

yamānlīk bīla bārdī; cf. f. 156b and n. for its opposite, yakhshī bārdīlār; and T. R. p. 196.

Back

972

One might be of mail, the other of wadded cloth.

Back

973

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.).

Back

974

This may be the “Baboulei” of the French Map of 1904, on the Herī-Kushk-Marūchāq road.

Back

975

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.

Back

976

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.

Back

977

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-sult̤ān Begīm, d. of Mīrān-shāh, s. of Tīmūr. She died Muḥ. 24th 874 AH. (July 25th 1489 AD. Ḥ.S. iii, 218).

Back

978

“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).

Back

979

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.

Back

980

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).

Back

981

From this Wais and Sl. Ḥusain M.’s daughter Sult̤ānīm (f. 167b) were descended the Bāī-qarā Mīrzās who gave Akbar so much trouble.

Back

982

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).

Back

983

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).

Back

2854

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).)

2855

For an analysis of an illustrative passage see JRAS. 1906; for facilities of re-translation see eo cap. p. xviii, where Erskine is quoted.)

2856

See A.N. trans., p. 260; Prefaces of Ilminski and de Courteille; ZDMG. xxxvii, Teufel’s art.; JRAS. 1906.)

2857

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.)