The Bābur-nāma. Babur
Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу The Bābur-nāma - Babur страница 16

Название: The Bābur-nāma

Автор: Babur

Издательство: Public Domain

Жанр: Зарубежная классика

Серия:

isbn:

isbn:

СКАЧАТЬ target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#n208" type="note">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 СКАЧАТЬ



<p>209</p>

Cf. f. 6b and note.

<p>210</p>

mashaf kitābat qīlūr īdī.

<p>211</p>

Cf. f. 36 and Ḥ.S. ii. 271.

<p>212</p>

sīnkīlīsī ham mūndā īdī.

<p>213</p>

khāna-wādalār, viz. the Chaghatāī, the Tīmūrid in two Mīrān-shāhī branches, ‘Alī’s and Bābur’s and the Bāī-qarā in Harāt.

<p>214</p>

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.

<p>215</p>

Ẕū’l-ḥijja 910 AH. – May 1505 AD. Cf. f. 154. This statement helps to define what Bābur reckoned his expeditions into Hindūstān.

<p>216</p>

Aīkū (Ayāgū) – tīmūr Tarkhān Arghūn d. circa 793 AH. -1391 AD. He was a friend of Tīmūr. See Z̤.N. i, 525 etc.

<p>217</p>

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.

<p>218</p>

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.

<p>219</p>

So pointed in the Ḥai. MS. I surmise it a clan-name.

<p>220</p>

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.

<p>221</p>

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.

<p>222</p>

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.

<p>223</p>

Cf. f. 27. He married a full-sister of Bāī-sunghar.

<p>224</p>

Gulistān Part I. Story 27. For “steaming up,” see Tennyson’s Lotus-eaters Choric song, canto 8 (H.B.).