55. P. 182, verse. These lines occur in Sharafu-d-din's preface to the afarnāma, i.e., in his Tārīkh Jahāngīr.
56. P. 201, n. 2. There is a mistake in this note. The Prolegomena says ten, but only gives five names.
57. P. 204, l. 10. Read Shāhnishānī.
58. P. 217, n. 2. Gauhar Shād's death is described in the Mala' Sa‘ādain, and the date given is 9 Ramẓān. Sām Mīrzā in his anthology R.M. MS. Add. 7670, p. 46b, says Qatalu-d-dīn Muhammad Duānī was the author of the chronogram. He gives the quatrain.
59. P. 218, l. 14. For “gave” read “give.”
60. P. 222, l. 6. For “then” read “these.”
61. Do. Shahrbānū's name is also omitted in Shīrāzī's text, and in the Alwar MS. only four daughters are mentioned. Shahrbānū apparently means the Moon-lady. For “Bābar's,” p. 222, n. 1, read “‘Umar Shaikh's.”
62. P. 223, beginning of chapter, and n. 2. For “king of the four quarters and of the seven heavens” read king of the throne of the seven worlds.” The word cahār is often used, as Quatremère has shown in his notes to the Mala' Saādain without really meaning four. Cahār bālish really only means the pillows of the divān, or the divān itself. By the haft manar is meant here probably the seven climes, or the seven heavens, or the seven planets. It is however worthy of notice that the Qub of Delhi was known as the Mināaa-i-haft manar, i.e., the minaret of seven stories. See Garçin de Tassy's translation of Syed ‘Aḥmad's work on Delhi, Paris 1861, p. 86. As Delhi was Bābar's capital, it is possible that here A.F. is alluding to the Qub.
63. P. 223, n. 4. For Jānī read Jāmī.
64. P. 228, two lines from foot. Text and MSS. have Bektūb. Erskine, 170, has Bektob.
65. P. 232, n. last sentence, read Khālazāīd. It means “full aunt.” Bābar in the account of his father's children speaks of one daughter as being hamshīrazāīd, i.e., full sister, of Nāṣir.
66. P. 233, line 18. Before 917 read “in the month of Rajab.”
67. P. 234, top line and n. 1. Usually called Najm ānī from his having succeeded Najm Zargar Gilānī. His real name was Yār Aḥmad Ispahānī. The Haft Iqlim I.O. copy 329b says he was put to death by Ubaid Ullah on 3 Ramẓān 918. These occurrences are detailed in the T. Alfī B.M. MS., Or. 465, 514b and also in the Ḥabību-s-siyar, and in the lives of Ismāīl and ahmāsp by Khwāndamīr's son Maḥmūd, as well as in the anonymous author of the life of Ism‘aīl, B.M. MSS., Or. 2939 and 3248. A.F. is correct in saying that Bābar had at first won the victory; Ubaid Ullah lay in ambush and turned the victory into a defeat. The victories which Bābar previously gained occurred near Ḥiṣār and were won against Shaibānī's sons Ḥamza and Mahdī Sulāns. See Shaibāuī' letter B.M. MS., Or. 3482 68b where a list of his children is given.
68. Do., n. 1. In the anonymous life of Ism‘aīl, p. 215a, it is stated that one ward of Karshi was exclusively occupied by Caghatais, and that they begged for Bābar's protection. He interceded for them with Najm ānī, but it was in vain. On the day of the battle Najm ānī put Bābar in the reserve. When Bābar saw that the battle was lost he fled to Ḥiṣār.
69. P. 238, n. 5, for “taken” read “taker.” The derivation here given seems correct, and is supported by Gulbadan Begam's Memoirs, p. 8c, where Qāsim Beg is described as writing to Bābar that a new prince had been born, and suggesting that his name should be made a prognostic of the conquest of India, ba shagūn fatḥ-i-Hind u takht alimash. The last word is Turkī and means “taking.” In consequence of this letter Bābar called his son Hindāl.
70. P. 241, top line. Read Biban.
71. Do., n. 3. A.F. is evidently copying Shaikh Zain here. He has B.M. MS., Or. 1999, 51b, “ba zinjīr u khām-i-gāo.”
72. P. 243, n. l. See Shaikh Zain 88a. The page is misplaced in MS. and should come after 57b.
73. Do., l. 14. For tūlghāma read tūlaqma.
74. P. 244, n. 5. Possibly Bābar does not name Taimur because he was not a bādshāh, but only an Amīr. But most likely it is because Taimur did not acquire the sovereignty of Hindustan. He merely plundered the country and returned. A.F. reckons Taimur, for at p. 245 he calls Bābar the fourth conqueror.
75. P. 244. The comparison with Taimur's forces is taken from Shaikh Zain, B.M. MS., pp. 53b and 55a. Zain has naukar-turk Turkish servants instead of naukar-i-naukar. He also gives 18,000 as the number of horses who can occupy a farsang though he reckons Taimur's total force at 72,000.
76. P. 246, note 278. More probably the reference is to the battle of Pānīpat with Hemū though Akbar had little personal share in the victory. Instead of “many rebellious chiefs” read “so many refractory chiefs.”
77. P. 247, n. 4. Zain l.c., pp. 63c and b says Alaūddīn brought a
diamond to India. Mūtamed Khān says in the Iqbālnāma that Alau-d-din
got diamond from Vikramādītya. In this he is merely copying A.F.
My opinion now is that it is not certain that Bābar means that his
son got the diamond from Vikramādītya's heirs. His language is
vague and perhaps all he means is that the diamond was one of the
things that Humāyūn got when he was investing the fort. At any rate
Bābar's account is not that of an eyewitness. Zain makes Humāyūn
the spokesman to his father. He says the diamond was reckoned
worth 2 1/2 days of the world's income. The word in Add. 27, 247 is
78. P. 248, beginning of para. Zain has Tuesday the 29th.
79. P. 249, n. In Persian quotation read in second line
80. P. 257, last para. and n. 4. Shaikh Zain, p. 98b, says that
Ibrahim's mother was sent to Kābul and the Tārīkh Maḥmadi B.M. Or.
1824, p. 57a says that on the road the lady flung herself into the
Indus and drowned herself. The author gives as his authority for this
statement the Iqbālnāma of Mūtamed Khān, and I have verified the
reference. It also appears from the Iqbālnāma that the lady's name
was Bava
81. P. 264, verse. For cap read veil.
82. 266, n. 5. It appears from Bābar's Memoirs, Erskine 274, that Khān Mirzā was alive on 4th September, 1519, or Ramaẓān 925, for the Jān Nāsir there mentioned as coming from his government seems a clerical error for Khān Mīrzān; O, p. 272, we see that Kipak had been sent to him, and presumably this was to summon him to his presence.
83. P. 272, n. 2. Insert comma after him, and delete comma after Ḥaidar.
84. P. 273, n. 1. Probably Alwar is correct. The child probably was born at Alwar which was his brother Hindāl's appanage afterwards, and received his name from the place.
85. P. 277, near foot. Read “He bade adieu to this faithless world on 6 Jamāda-ul-awwal 937 in a garden (cārbāghe) in Agra, on the banks of the Jamna, which that springtide of fortune had made verdant.”
Add. note 2a. The local tradition is that Bābar was temporarily buried in the Rāmbāgh (originally perhaps* Ārāmbāgh) on the left or east side of the river, about two miles above the railway bridge. Mr. Keene says in his guide to Agra, p. 1, that according to the Akbarnāma Bābar was buried in the Cārbāgh some miles lower down the river and nearly opposite the Tāj. But the Akbarnāma says nothing about where the body was buried, and A.F.'s words are that the death occurred in a Cārbāgh. Any laid out garden is called a Cārbāgh, meaning perhaps that it is rectangular, or divided into squares by paths. Bābar's body remained in the garden for several years, and perhaps would never have been removed if Humāyūn had not been driven out of India. Bābar tells us that the east bank of the Jamna was called Kābul by the Indians in allusion to its gardens. Perhaps this gave rise to the story that Bābar desired to be buried in Kābul, or it may be that his son satisfied his conscience by thinking that his father's body was doposited in a place known as Kābul. At all events it seems to have lain there till after the battle of Kanauj and the consequent flight from India when Bābar's widow Bīka Begam performed the pious duty of removing it to Kābul. See the story in Jauhar (Persian text) and in Erskine's History II, 325 n. It is clear from Jahāngīr's reference to Bīka Begam in the Tuzuk, p. 51, lith. ed. that she was Bābar's widow and that consequently it was not Bābar's daughter M‘asūma, or Humāyūn's wife Ḥājī Begam who removed the bones.