The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)

[1042] This brief summary conveys the impression that the Begīm went on her pilgrimage shortly after Mas‘ūd’s death (913 AH. ?), but may be wrong:—After Mas‘ūd’s murder, by one Bīmāsh Mīrzā, dārogha of Sarakhs, at Shaibāq Khān’s order, she was married by Bīmāsh M. (Ḥ.S. iii, 278). How long after this she went to Makka is not said; it was about 934 AH. when Bābur heard of her as there.

[1043] This clause is in the Ḥai. MS. but not in the Elph. MS. (f. 131), or Kehr’s (Ilminsky, p. 210), or in either Persian translation. The boy may have been 17 or 18.

[1044] This appears a mistake (f. 168 foot, and note on Pāpā’s daughters).

[1045] f. 171b.

[1046] 933 AH.-1527 AD. (f. 329).

[1047] Presumably this was a yīnkālīk marriage; it differs from some of those chronicled and also from a levirate marriage in not being made with a childless wife. (Cf. index s.n. yīnkālīk.)

[1048] Khwānd-amīr says that Bega Begīm was jealous, died of grief at her divorce, and was buried in a College, of her own erection, in 893 AH. (1488 AD. ḤS. iii, 245).

[1049]Gulistān Cap. II, Story 31 (Platts, p. 114).

[1050]i.e. did not get ready to ride off if her husband were beaten by her brother (f. 11 and note to Ḥabība).

[1051] Khadīja Begī Āghā (Ḥ.S. ii, 230 and iii, 327); she would be promoted probably after Shāh-i-gharīb’s birth.

[1052] He was a son of Badī‘u’z-zamān.

[1053] It is singular that this honoured woman’s parentage is not mentioned; if it be right on f. 168b (q.v. with note) to read Sayyid Mīrzā of Apāq Begīm, she may be a sayyida of Andikhūd.

[1054] As Bābur left Kābul on Ṣafar 1st (Nov. 17th 1525 AD.), the Begīm must have arrived in Muḥarram 932 AH. (Oct. 18th to Nov. 17th).

[1055] f. 333. As Chandīrī was besieged in Rabī‘u’l-ākhar 934 AH. this passage shews that, as a minimum estimate, what remains of Bābur’s composed narrative (i.e. down to f. 216b) was written after that date (Jan. 1528).

[1056]Chār-shambalār. Mention of another inhabitant of this place with the odd name, Wednesday (Chār-shamba), is made on f. 42b.

[1057] Mole-marked Lady; most MSS. style her Bī but Ḥ.S. iii, 327, writes Bībī; it varies also by calling her a Turk. She was a purchased slave of Shahr-bānū’s and was given to the Mīrzā by Shahr-bānū at the time of her own marriage with him.

[1058] As noted already, f. 168b enumerates three only.

[1059] The three were almost certainly Badī‘u’z-zamān, Ḥaidar, son of a Tīmūrid mother, and Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain, born after his mother had been legally married.

[1060] Seven sons predeceased him:—Farrukh, Shāh-i-gharīb, Muḥ. Ma‘ṣūm, Ḥaidar, Ibrāhīm-i-ḥusain, Muḥ. Ḥusain and Abū-turāb. So too five daughters:—Āq, Bega, Āghā, Kīchīk and Fāt̤ima-sult̤ān Begīms. So too four wives:—Bega-sult̤ān and Chūlī Begīms, Zubaida and Lat̤īf-sult̤ān Āghāchas (Ḥ.S. iii, 327).

[1061] Chākū, a Barlās, as was Tīmūr, was one of Tīmūr’s noted men.

At this point some hand not the scribe’s has entered on the margin of the Ḥai. MS. the descendants of Muḥ. Barandūq down into Akbar’s reign:—Muḥ. Farīdūn, bin Muḥ. Qulī Khān, bin Mīrzā ‘Alī, bin Muḥ. Barandūq Barlās. Of these Farīdūn and Muḥ. Qulī are amīrs of the Āyīn-i-akbarī list (Blochmann, pp. 341, 342; Ḥ.S. iii, 233).

[1062] Enforced marches of Mughūls and other nomads are mentioned also on f. 154b and f. 155.

[1063] Ḥ.S. iii, 228, 233, 235.

[1064]beg kīshī, beg-person.

[1065] Khwānd-amīr says he died a natural death (Ḥ.S. iii, 235).

[1066] f. 21. For a fuller account of Nawā’i, J. Asiatique xvii, 175, M. Belin’s article.

[1067]i.e. when he was poor and a beg’s dependant. He went back to Herī at Sl. Ḥusain M.’s request in 873 AH.

[1068] Niz̤āmī’s (Rieu’s Pers. Cat. s.n.).

[1069] Farīdu’d-dīn-‘at̤t̤ar’s (Rieu l.c. and Ency. Br.).

[1070]Gharā’ibu’ṣ-ṣighar, Nawādiru’sh-shahāb, Badā’i‘u’l-wasat̤ and Fawā’idu’l-kibr.

[1071] Every Persian poet has a takhalluṣ (pen-name) which he introduces into the last couplet of each ode (Erskine).

[1072] The death occurred in the First Jumāda 906 AH. (Dec. 1500 AD.).

[1073] Niz̤āmu’d-dīn Aḥmad bin Tawakkal Barlās (Ḥ.S. iii, 229).

[1074] This may be that uncle of Tīmūr who made the Ḥaj (T. R. p. 48, quoting the Z̤afar-nāma).

[1075] Some MSS. omit the word “father” here but to read it obviates the difficulty of calling Walī a great beg of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā although he died when that mīrzā took the throne (973 AH.) and although no leading place is allotted to him in Bābur’s list of Herī begs. Here as in other parts of Bābur’s account of Herī, the texts vary much whether Turkī or Persian, e.g. the Elph. MS. appears to call Walī a blockhead (dūnkūz dūr), the Ḥai. MS. writing n:kūz dūr(?).

[1076] He had been Bābur Shāhrukhī’s yasāwal (Court-attendant), had fought against Ḥusain for Yādgār-i-muḥammad and had given a daughter to Ḥusain (Ḥ.S. iii, 206, 228, 230-32; D.S. in Not. et Ex. de Saçy p. 265).

[1077] f. 29b.

[1078]Sic, Elph. MS. and both Pers. trss. but the Ḥai. MS. omits “father”. To read it, however, suits the circumstance that Ḥasan of Ya‘qūb was not with Ḥusain and in Harāt but was connected with Maḥmūd Mīrānshāhī and Tīrmīẕ (f. 24). Nuyān is not a personal name but is a title; it implies good-birth; all uses of it I have seen are for members of the religious family of Tīrmīẕ.

[1079] He was the son of Ibrāhīm Barlās and a Badakhshī begīm (T.R. p. 108).

[1080] He will have been therefore a collateral of Daulat-shāh whose relation to Fīrūz-shāh is thus expressed by Nawā’i:—Mīr Daulat-shāh Fīrūz-shāh Beg-nīng ‘amm-zāda-sī Amīr ‘Alā’u’d-daula Isfārayīnī-nīng aūghūlī dur, i.e. Mīr Daulat-shāh was the son of Fīrūz-shāh Beg’s paternal uncle’s son, Amir ‘Alā’u’d-daula Isfārayīnī. Thus, Fīrūz-shāh and Isfārayīnī were first cousins; Daulat-shāh and ‘Abdu’l-khalīq’s father were second cousins; while Daulat-shāh and Fīrūz-shāh were first cousins, once removed (Rieu’s Pers. Cat. p. 534; Browne’s D.S. English preface p. 14 and its reference to the Pers. preface).