THE HISTORY OF BABUR OR BABUR-NAMA
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Babur, Emperor of Hindustan and Beveridge, Annette Susannah
Source notes
[2872] Daulat-shāh celebrates the renown of the Jalāīr section (farqa) of the Chaghatāī tribes (aqwām) of the Mughūl horde (aūlūs, ūlūs), styles the above-entered ‘Alī Beg a veteran hero, and links his family with that of the Jalāīr Sultāns of Bāghdād (Browne’s ed. p. 519).
[2873] See H. S. lith. ed. iii, 224, for three men who conveyed helpful information to Husain.
[2874] Later consideration has cast doubts on his identification with Darwesh-i-‘alī suggested, p. 345 n. 4.
[2875] On p. 69 n. 2 for aūnūlūng read aūnūtūng and reverse bakunīd with nakunīd.
[2876] On p. 49 l. 3 for “Black Sheep” read White Sheep.
[2877] Like his brother Hind-āl’s name, Alūr’s may be due to the taking (al) of Hind.
[2878] See the T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī account of the rulers of Multān.
[2879] On p. 85 l. 9 for “872 AH.-1467 AD.”, read 851 AH.-1447 AD.
[2880] On p. 79 transfer the note-reference “3” to qibla.
[2881] See Daulat-shāh (Browne’s ed. p. 362) for an entertaining record of the Mīrzā’s zeal as a sportsman and an illustrative anecdote by Shaikh ‘Ārif ‘azarī q.v. (H.B.).
[2882] I have found no statement of his tribe or race; he and his brother are styled Khwāja (Ḥ.S. lith. ed. iii, 272); he is associated closely with Aḥmad Taṃbal Mughūl and Mughūls of the Horde; also his niece’s name Aūlūs Āghā translates as Lady of the Horde (ūlūs, aūlūs). But he may have been a Turkmān.
[2883] The MS. variants between ‘Alī and -qulī are confusing. What stands in my text (p. 27) may be less safe than the above.
[2884] Bābā Qashqa was murdered by Muḥammad-i-zamān Bāī-qarā. For further particulars of his family group see Add. Notes under p. 404.
[2885] Sult̤an Bābā-qulī Beg is found variously designated Qulī Beg, Qulī Bābā, Sl. ‘Alī Bābā-qulī, Sult̤ān-qūlī Bābā and Bābā-qulī Beg. Several forms appear to express his filial relationship with Sult̤ān Bābā ‘Alī (q.v.).
[2886] Down to p. 346 Bābur’s statements are retrospective; after p. 346 they are mostly contemporary with the dates of his diary—when not so are in supplementing passages of later date.
[2887] He may be the father of Mun‘im Khān (Blochmann’s Biographies A.-i-A. trs. 317 and n. 2).
[2888] See note, Index, s.n. Muḥammad Ẕakarīa.
[2889] He is likely to have been introduced with some particulars of tribe, in one of the now unchronicled years after Bābur’s return from his Trans-oxus campaign.
[2890] His wife, daughter of a wealthy man and on the mother’s side niece of Sult̤ān Buhlūl Lūdī, financed the military efforts of Bāyazīd and Bīban (Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhī, E. and D. iv, 353 ff.).
[2891] My translation on p. 621 l. 12 is inaccurate inasmuch as it hides the circumstance that Beg-gīna alone was the “messenger of good tidings”.
[2892] In taking Bīban for a Jilwānī, I follow Erskine, (as inferences also warrant,) but he may be a Lūdī.
[2893] For the same uncertainty between Bihār and Pahār see E. and D.’s History of India iv, 352 n. 2.
[2894] Firishta lith. ed. i, 202.
[2895] For “Mū’min” read Mūmin, which form is constant in the Ḥai. MS.
[2896] He may be Ḥamīda-bānū’s father and, if so, became grandfather of Akbar.
[2897] Ilminsky, anlū, Erskine, angū. Daulat-shāh mentions a Muḥammad Shāh anjū (see Brown’s ed. Index s.n.).
[2898] On p. 22 n. 2 delete “Chaghatāī Mughūl” on grounds given in Additional Note, Page 22.
[2899] For Humāyūn’s annotation of the Bābur-nāma, see General Index s.n. Humāyūn’s Notes.
[2900] For a correction of dates, see s.n. Aūlūgh Beg.
[2901] On p. 279 l. 3 from foot read “There was also Ibrāhīm Chaghatāī” after “Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā”.
[2902]Addendum:—p. 49 l. 4, read “wife” of Muḥammadī “son” of Jahān-shāh.
[2903] His name might mean Welcome, Bien-venu.
[2904] Khusrau-shāh may be the more correct form.
[2905] The “afterwards” points to an omission which Khwānd-amīr’s account of Ḥusain’s daughters fills (lith. ed. iii, 327).
[2906] No record survives of the Khwāja’s deeds of daring other than those entered above; perhaps the other instances Bābur refers to occurred during the gap 908-9 AH.
[2907] This may be a tribal or a family name. Abū’l-ghāzī mentions two individuals named “Kouk”. One was Chīngīz Khān’s grandson who is likely to have had descendants or followers distinguishable as Kūkī. See Add. Note P. 673 on Kūkī fate.
[2908] Cf. E. and D. for “KARĀNĪ” (e.g. vol. iv, 530). The Ḥai. MS. sometimes doubles the r, sometimes not.
[2909] See Wāqi‘āt-i-mushtāqī, E. and D. iv, 548.
[2910] Shaikhīm Suhailī however was named Aḥmad (277) not Muhammad.
[2911] The record of the first appears likely to be lost in the lacuna of 934 AH.