There does not appear to be now any trace of the grave in the
Rām Bāgh, as the Cārbāgh is now called. The garden seems also to
have been known as the Gul-afshān. There is a long account of the
making of the Cārbāgh in Bābar, Erskine 341, and also in Shaikh
Zāin's Tārīkh Bābārī B.M., Or. 1999, p. 83b. It was on the east side
of the Jamna, and opposite the fort. S. Zāin calls it Cārbāgh-i-hasht
bihisht, a name which also occurs in Bābar. S. Zāin gives a poem
about the garden, ending in the chronogram
86. Nizāmu-d-dīn calls Mahdī Khwāja “dāmād,” but “dāmād” means husband of the king's sister and husband in general as well as son-in-law. Gulbadan Begam, who is a better authority on the point, calls Mahdī Khwāja īzna, i.e., brother-in-law (it may also mean son-in-law) of Bābar. In the Ḥabīb-as-siyar B.M., MS. Add. 16,679, p. 370a, line 16, it is stated that Mahdī Khwāja was the husband of Bābar's elder sister Khānzāda Begam. The entry refers to the year 922. In the Bombay lithograph and in B.M. Add. 17,925 the name Khānzāda is not given but it is stated that Mahdī Khwāja was married to two sisters of Bābar, that he was the son of Mūsa and grandson of Mīr Murtaẓa, and that on the mother's side he was descended from Abul Khair Khān (Shaibānī's grandfather). In the Majālis Nafais of ‘Ali Sher, a Khwāja Mūsā is described as a rich man who bought verses from poor poets and passed them off as his own. Apparently Ibrāhīm Qanūnī a famous musician who is also mentioned in the Majālis as well as in Sām M. Taḥfat B.M. MS. 7671, p. 64b was a son of Khwāja Mūsā.
87. P. 278, Cf. A.N. III, 580. The 34th year corresponds to 997-998 A.H. or 1588-89. The Memoirs were partially translated before this, first by Shaikh Zāin, and second by Payanda Ḥasan Ghaznavī and Muḥammad Qulī Moghal in 994 et seq., i.e., 1585. It also seems to me from a MS. in the Alwar Palace-library that the so-called ‘Abdurraḥīm's translation existed in Humāyūn's time. See Asiatic Quarterly Review for July and October 1900.
87a. Do., n. 2. For Tempel read Teufel.
88. P. 279, Verse. This quatrain is given in a Persian MS. of the Shaw collection in the Indian Institute, Oxford, No. 309 and called the Jām‘a-al-muqāmāt, “collection of assemblies.” The circumstances under which Bābar came to compose it are also given there. We are told that he won the victory over Rānā Sanga owing to the mysterious aid of Maulāna Khwājaga Aḥmad, otherwise known as Maqdūm ‘Aāzim. So he sent Darvesh Muḥammad Sārbān to him at Dahbād near Samarkand with presents and this verse. The saint is said in return to have written part of the Risāla-Bābarī. (Bābar's Memoirs?)
89. P. 280. Mr. Blochmann has given a translation of this passage at p. 220 of the Proceedings A.S.B. for 1874. There are several mistakes in my rendering. For the account of Shāikh Zain this should be substituted. “Shāikh Zain Ṣadr, great-grandson of (ba do wāsa, two removes) Shāikh Zainu-d-dīn Khwāfī. He had acquired a knowledge of science, was of quick parts and was skilled in poetry and the art of letter-writing. He was distinguished by his long association with His Majesty, and became an Amīr in the time of His Majesty Jahānbānī Jinnat-Āshiyānī.” See at p. 219 l.c., the inscription on S. Zain's mosque at Kachparwa.
90. Do., line 12. For “paternal” read “maternal.”
91. Do., Fārighī. For an account of him and specimens of his poetry see Budāūnī, Ranking 616. Budāūnī says that he and his nephew died in the same year (940 A.H.)
92. P. 281. Mr. Blochmann has “surkh widāī kuhnah, a little-known poet.” The word which I have rendered “inartificial” is be-ta‘yīn, and should be rendered “obscure.” He is mentioned in ‘Alī Sher's Majālis, p. 41a, of Persian translation.
93. Do., l. 6. Insert indefinite article before masnavī.
94. P. 285, n. 2. Māham most probably means “My moon.” It was apparently a common appellation for women. Cf. Māham Anaga, and the name of Taimur's wife. See Schuyler's Turkistan II. 97, ed. 1876, where we are told that a beautiful lady who was executed at Bokhāra was commonly known as “My moon of Kenin ghaz.” Cf. the proper names Nuram, and Shāikham, i.e., My light and my Shāikh. If Maham be regarded as a Turkī word it should from the law of the sequence of vowels be spelt Māhim as in P. de Courteille.
94a. The fullest accounts of this worthless character, M. Zamān, Mīrzā are to be found in B.M. MSS., Or. 2939 and 3248. He was married to Bābar's daughter in Kabul in 921 or 922, and a few months afterwards his father-in-law sent him back to Balkh as governor. He was not a success there, and could not resist the Uzbegs. In 934 Bābar summoned him to India and settled a large estate upon. He ended his days by being drowned at Causa.
95. Do. According to the Mirāt Sikandarī four letters passed between Humāyūn and Bahādūr; verse I, p. 293, belongs to Humāyūn's first letter, and verse II to the second, viz., that which was written on receipt of Bāhādūr's first reply. The M. Sikandarī Bombay lithograph 237 gives Humāyūn's second letter, and at 235 Bahādūr's reply. The latter is very insolent in tone and it is no wonder that it offended Humāyūn. It blames him for his treatment of M. Zamān and taunts him with boasting of the deeds of his seventh ancestor (Taimur) while having nothing of his own to show. It winds up with a verse to this effect. The translation in Bayley's Gujrat, p. 374, is very erroneous. A translation of the M. Sikandarī has lately been published at Bombay by Faẓl Ullah. The correspondence will also be found in B.M.'s MS., Or. 3482, pp. 104-106. I do not think Bayāzīd was M. Zamān's custodian. More probably he was his fellow-prisoner.
96. P. 295, Verse. See also T. Alfi, p. 115, of B.M., Or. 465. The second couplet is from Ḥāfiẓ, Brockhans, p. 141, Ode 220.
97. P. 296, 2nd line. The figure 1 is misplaced. It refers to “weak head” on top line.
98. P. 297, n. 4. In a letter to Erskine, Mountstūart Elphinstone, see his life by Colebrooke, comments on what appears to be Bābar's suppression of facts about the Prince of Hind, whose name he seems to have used. I presume Elphinstone refers to Alāūddīn whom Bābar used as a tool.
99. P. 298, n. second col. For 960 read 96 n.
100. P. 302, n. 1. There were at least three Rūmī Khāns, viz., 1ts. The man whom the Portuguese called Khwāja Sofar, who built the fort of Surat, and whose head was carried off by a cannon ball at the second siege of Diu in June 1546. 2nd. His son whom the Tārīkh Muḥammadi calls Khwāja Maham, who was killed in the same siege, just at its close in November 1546. See Tevius, p. 441. 3rd. Rūmī Khān, Bahādur's artillery-officer who deserted to Humāyūn and was poisoned after the taking of Cunār. Some information regarding Rūmī Khān the artillerist and Khwāja Safar will be found in the Barq-al-Yamān of Qubu-d-dīn of which De Saçy has given an abstract in N. et E. IV. It appears from it that Rūmī Khān the artillerist's real name was Mastafa Beg and that he was the son of Bairam and nephew of Sulaimān. He came to India in the Turkish fleet commanded by his uncle in 936. Khwāja Safar came at the same time and both were well received by Bahādūr, Mastafa getting the title of Rūmī Khān and the governorship of Diu, and Safar being made governor of Surat. The story of Rūmī Khān's being poisoned is confirmed by Qubu-d-dīn. Erskine, Hist. II, 82 n., says that the first Rūmī Khān is buried at Surat, and Tevius, p. 385, of his commentaries, seems to say that his obsequies were celebrated at Diu. ‘Aārif Qandahārī gives the verses in which the chronogram of the building of Surat fort occur, see Blochmann 354, and says they were written by Aḥmad Shīrāzī known as Raẓaī. The name of the builder of the fort is given in the verses as Khān ‘Aāim Khān Khudawand Khān.