but less pertinent here than an unlimited quantity.
487
Here a pun on ‘ajab may be read.
488
Cf. f. 15, note to T̤aghāī.
489
Apparently not the usual Kīndīr-līk pass but one n.w. of Kāsān.
490
A ride of at least 40 miles, followed by one of 20 to Kāsān.
491
Cf. f. 72 and f. 72b. Tīlba would seem to have left Taṃbal.
492
Taṃbalnīng qarāsī.
493
i. e. the Other (Mid-afternoon) Prayer.
494
ātīnīng būīnīnī qātīb.Qātmāq has also the here-appropriate meaning of to stiffen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
499
Cf. f. 54 foot.
500
Cf. f. 20. She may have come from Samarkand and ‘Alī’s household or from Kesh and the Tarkhān households.
501
Cf. f. 26 l. 2 for the same phrase.
502
He is the author of the Shaibānī-nāma.
503
dāng and fils (infra) are small copper coins.
504
Cf. f. 25 l. 1 and note 1.
505
Probably the poet again; he had left Harāt and was in Samarkand (Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 34 l. 14).
506
From what follows, this Mughūl advance seems a sequel to a Tarkhān invitation.
507
By omitting the word Mīr the Turkī text has caused confusion between this father and son (Index s. nn.).
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.
509
For būlghār, rendezvous, see also f. 78 l. 2 fr. ft.
510
25 m. only; the halts were due probably to belated arrivals.
511
Some of his ties would be those of old acquaintance in Ḥiṣār with ‘Alī’s father’s begs, now with him in Samarkand.
512
Point to point, some 90 m. but further by road.
513
Bū waqi‘ būlghāch, manifestly ironical.
514
Sangzār to Aūrā-tīpā, by way of the hills, some 50 miles.
515
The Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 60, confirms this.
516
Cf. f. 74b.
517
Macham and Awīghūr, presumably.
518
gūzlār tūz tūtī, i. e. he was blinded for some treachery to his hosts.
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.
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.
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.
522
He tried vainly to get the town defended. “Would to God Bābur Mīrzā were here!” he is reported as saying, by Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ.
523
Perhaps it is for the play of words on ‘Alī and ‘Alī’s life (jān) that this man makes his sole appearance here.
524
i. e. rich man or merchant, but Bī (infra) is an equivalent of Beg.
525
Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ, invoking curses on such a mother, mentions that Zuhra was given to a person of her own sort.
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.
527
Harāt might be his destination but the Ḥ.S. names Makka. Some dismissals towards Khurāsān may imply pilgrimage to Meshhed.
