The Bābur-nāma. Babur. Читать онлайн. Newlib. NEWLIB.NET
NEWLIB.NET

The Bābur-nāma. Babur

Читать онлайн.

Автор: Babur
Издательство: Public Domain
Серия:
Жанр произведения: Зарубежная классика
Год издания: 0
isbn:
Скачать книгу
then lost heart, entered into talk with the Aūzbeg and were in the act of letting him up into the fort when Chīn Ṣūfī had the news and went to the spot. Just as he was beating and forcing down the Aūzbegs, his own page, in a discharge of arrows, shot him from behind. No man was left to fight; the Aūzbegs took Khwārizm. God’s mercy on Chīn Ṣūfī, who never for one moment ceased to stake his life for his chief!973

      Shaibāq Khān entrusted Khwārizm to Kūpuk (sic) Bī and went back to Samarkand.

      (k. Death of Sultān Ḥusain Mīrzā.)

      Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā having led his army out against Shaibāq Khān as far as Bābā Ilāhī974 went to God’s mercy, in the month of Ẕū’l-ḥijja (Ẕū’l-ḥijja 11th 911 AH. – May 5th 1506 AD.).

SULT̤ĀN ḤUSAIN MĪRZĀ AND HIS COURT.975

      (a.) His birth and descent.

      He was born in Herī (Harāt), in (Muḥarram) 842 (AH. – June-July, 1438 AD.) in Shāhrukh Mīrzā’s time976 and was the son of Manṣūr Mīrzā, son of Bāī-qarā Mīrzā, son of ‘Umar Shaikh Mīrzā, son of Amīr Tīmūr. Manṣūr Mīrzā and Bāī-qarā Mīrzā never reigned.

      His mother was Fīrūza Begīm, a (great-)grandchild (nabīra) of Tīmūr Beg; through her he became a grandchild of Mīrān-shāh also.977 He was of high birth on both sides, a ruler of royal lineage.978 Of the marriage (of Manṣūr with Fīrūza) were born two sons and two daughters, namely, Bāī-qarā Mīrzā and Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, Ākā Begīm and another daughter, Badka Begīm whom Aḥmad Khān took.979

      Bāī-qarā Mīrzā was older than Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā; he was his younger brother’s retainer but used not to be present as head of the Court;980 except in Court, he used to share his brother’s divan (tūshak). He was given Balkh by his younger brother and was its Commandant for several years. He had three sons, Sl. Muḥammad Mīrzā, Sl. Wais Mīrzā and Sl. Iskandar Mīrzā.981

      Ākā Begīm was older than the Mīrzā; she was taken by Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā,982 a grandson (nabīra) of Mīrān-shāh; by him she had a son (Muḥammad Sult̤ān Mīrzā), known as Kīchīk (Little) Mīrzā, who at first was in his maternal-uncle’s service, but later on gave up soldiering to occupy himself with letters. He is said to have become very learned and also to have taste in verse.983 Here is a Persian quatrain of his: —

      For long on a life of devotion I plumed me,

      As one of the band of the abstinent ranged me;

      Where when Love came was devotion? denial?

      By the mercy of God it is I have proved me!

      Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

      Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

      Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

      Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

      1

      Cf. Cap. II, PROBLEMS OF THE MUTILATED BABUR-NAMA and Tarīkh-i-rashīdi, trs. p. 174.

      2

      The suggestion, implied by my use of this word, that Babur may have definitely closed his autobiography (as Timur did under other circumstances) is due to the existence of a compelling cause viz. that he would be expectant of death as the price of Humayun’s restored life (p. 701).

      3

      Cf. p. 83 and n. and Add. Note, P. 83 for further emendation of a contradiction effected by some malign influence in the note (p. 83) between parts of that note, and between it and Babur’s account of his not-drinking in Herat.

      4

      Teufel held its title to be waqi‘ (this I adopted in 1908), but it has no definite support and in numerous instances of its occurrence to describe the acts or doings of Babur, it could be read as a common noun.

      5

      It stands on the reverse of the frontal page of the Haidarabad Codex; it is Timur-pulad’s name for the Codex he purchased in Bukhara, and it is thence brought on by Kehr (with Ilminski), and Klaproth (Cap. III); it is used by Khwafi Khan (d. cir. 1732), etc.

      6

      That Babur left a complete record much indicates beyond his own persistence and literary bias, e. g. cross-reference with and needed complements from what is lost; mention by other writers of Babur’s information, notably by Haidar.

      7

      App. H, xxx.

      8

      p. 446, n. 6. Babur’s order for the cairn would fit into the lost record of the first month of the year (p. 445).

      9

      Parts of the Babur-nama sent to Babur’s sons are not included here.

      10

      The standard of comparison is the 382 fols. of the Haidarabad Codex.

      11

      This MS. is not to be confused with one Erskine misunderstood Humayun to have copied (Memoirs, p. 303 and JRAS. 1900, p. 443).

      12

      For precise limits of the original annotation see p. 446 n. – For details about the E. Codex see JRAS. 1907, art. The Elph. Codex, and for the colophon AQR. 1900, July, Oct. and JRAS. 1905, pp. 752, 761.

      13

      See Index s. n. and III ante and JRAS. 1900-3-5-6-7.

      14

      Here speaks the man reared in touch with European classics; (pure) Turki though it uses no relatives (Radloff) is lucid. Cf. Cap. IV The Memoirs of Babur.

      15

      For analysis of a retranslated passage see JRAS. 1908, p. 85.

      16

      Tuzuk-i-jahangiri, Rogers & Beveridge’s trs. i, 110; JRAS. 1900, p. 756, for the Persian passage, 1908, p. 76 for the “Fragments”, 1900, p. 476 for Ilminski’s Preface (a second translation is

Скачать книгу
<p>973</p>

Chīn Ṣūfī was Ḥusain Bāī-qarā’s man (T.R. p. 204). His arduous defence, faithfulness and abandonment recall the instance of a later time when also a long road stretched between the man and the help that failed him. But the Mīrzā was old, his military strength was, admittedly, sapped by ease; hence his elder Khartum, his neglect of his Gordon.

It should be noted that no mention of the page’s fatal arrow is made by the Shaibānī-nāma (Vambéry, p. 442), or by the Tārīkh-i-rashīdī (p. 204). Chīn Ṣūfī’s death was on the 21st of the Second Rabī 911 AH. (Aug. 22nd 1505 AD.).

<p>974</p>

This may be the “Baboulei” of the French Map of 1904, on the Herī-Kushk-Marūchāq road.

<p>975</p>

Elph. MS. f. 127; W. – i-B. I.O. 215 f. 132 and 217 f. 111b; Mems. p. 175; Méms. i, 364.

That Bābur should have given his laborious account of the Court of Herī seems due both to loyalty to a great Tīmūrid, seated in Tīmūr Beg’s place (f. 122b), and to his own interest, as a man-of-letters and connoisseur in excellence, in that ruler’s galaxy of talent. His account here opening is not complete; its sources are various; they include the Ḥabību’s-siyār and what he will have learned himself in Herī or from members of the Bāī-qarā family, knowledgeable women some of them, who were with him in Hindūstān. The narrow scope of my notes shews that they attempt no more than to indicate further sources of information and to clear up a few obscurities.

<p>976</p>

Tīmūr’s youngest son, d. 850 AH. (1446 AD.). Cf. Ḥ.S. iii, 203. The use in this sentence of Amīr and not Beg as Tīmūr’s title is, up to this point, unique in the Bābur-nāma; it may be a scribe’s error.

<p>977</p>

Fīrūza’s paternal line of descent was as follows: – Fīrūza, daughter of Sl. Ḥusain Qānjūt, son of Ākā Begīm, daughter of Tīmūr. Her maternal descent was: – Fīrūza, d. of Qūtlūq-sult̤ān Begīm, d. of Mīrān-shāh, s. of Tīmūr. She died Muḥ. 24th 874 AH. (July 25th 1489 AD. Ḥ.S. iii, 218).

<p>978</p>

“No-one in the world had such parentage”, writes Khwānd-amīr, after detailing the Tīmūrid, Chīngīz-khānid, and other noted strains meeting in Ḥusain Bāī-qarā (Ḥ.S. iii, 204).

<p>979</p>

The Elph. MS. gives the Begīm no name; Badī‘u’l-jamāl is correct (Ḥ.S. iii, 242). The curious “Badka” needs explanation. It seems probable that Bābur left one of his blanks for later filling-in; the natural run of his sentence here is “Ākā B. and Badī‘u’l-jamāl B.” and not the detail, which follows in its due place, about the marriage with Aḥmad.

<p>980</p>

Dīwān bāshīdā ḥāṣir būlmās aīdī; the sense of which may be that Bāī-qarā did not sit where the premier retainer usually sat at the head of the Court (Pers. trs. sar-i-dīwān).

<p>981</p>

From this Wais and Sl. Ḥusain M.’s daughter Sult̤ānīm (f. 167b) were descended the Bāī-qarā Mīrzās who gave Akbar so much trouble.

<p>982</p>

As this man might be mistaken for Bābur’s uncle (q. v.) of the same name, it may be well to set down his parentage. He was a s. of Mīrzā Sayyidī Aḥmad, s. of Mīrān-shāh, s. of Tīmūr (Ḥ.S. iii, 217, 241). I have not found mention elsewhere of “Aḥmad s. of Mīrān-shāh”; the sayyidī in his style points to a sayyida mother. He was Governor of Herī for a time, for Sl. H.M.; ‘Alī-sher has notices of him and of his son, Kīchīk Mīrzā (Journal Asiatique xvii, 293, M. Belin’s art. where may be seen notices of many other men mentioned by Bābur).

<p>983</p>

He collected and thus preserved ‘Alī-sher’s earlier poems (Rieu’s Pers. Cat. p. 294). Mu’inu’d-dīn al Zamji writes respectfully of his being worthy of credence in some Egyptian matters with which he became acquainted in twice passing through that country on his Pilgrimage (Journal Asiatique xvi, 476, de Meynard’s article).