Chapter XXXVI: Section III: Hindūstān (10)

Detailed work on the Kābul section of the _Bābur-nāma_ has stamped two impressions so deeply on me, that they claim mention, not as novel or as special to myself, but as set by the work.

The first is of extreme risk in swift decision on any problem of words arising in North Afghānistān, because of its local concourse of tongues, the varied utterance of its unlettered tribes resident or nomad, and the frequent translation of proper names in obedience to their verbal meanings. Names lie there too in _strata_, relics of successive occupation—Greek, Turkī, Hindī, Pushtū and tribes _galore_.

The second is that the region is an exceptionally fruitful field for first-hand observation of speech, the movent ocean of the uttered word, free of the desiccated symbolism of alphabets and books.

The following books, amongst others, have prompted the above note:—

Ghoswāra Inscription, Kittoe, JASB., 1848, and Kielhorn,
_Indian Antiquary_, 1888, p. 311.

H. Sastrī's _Rāmacārita_, Introduction, p. 7 (ASB. Memoirs).

Cunningham's _Ancient India_, vol. i.

Beal's _Buddhist Records_, i, xxxiv, and cii, 91.

Leech's Vocabularies, JASB., 1838.

The writings of Masson (_Travels_ and _Ariana Antiqua_), Wood,
Vigne, etc.

Raverty's _T̤abaqāt-i-nāsirī_.

Jarrett's _Āyīn-i-akbarī_.

P.R.G.S. for maps, 1879; Macnair on the Kafirs, 1884; Tanner's
_On the Chugānī and neighbouring tribes of Kāfiristān_, 1881.

Simpson's _Nagarahāra_, JASB., xiii.

Biddulph's _Dialects of the Hindū-kush_, JRAS.

Gazette of India, 1907, art. Jalalābād.

Bellew's _Races of Afghānistān_.

F.—ON THE NAME DARA-I-NŪR

Some European writers have understood the name Dara-i-nūr to mean Valley of Light, but natural features and also the artificial one mentioned by Colonel H. G. Tanner (_infra_), make it better to read the component _nūr_, not as Persian _nūr_, light, but as Pushtū _nūr_, rock. Hence it translates as Valley of Rocks, or Rock-valley. The region in which the valley lies is rocky and boulder-strewn; its own waters flow to the Kābul-river east of the water of Chitrāl. It shews other names composed with _nūr_, in which _nūr_ suits if it means rock, but is inexplicable if it means light, _e.g._ Nūr-lām (Nūr-fort), the master-fort in the mouth of Nūr-valley, standing high on a rock between two streams, as Bābur and Tanner have both described it from eye-witness,—Nūr-gal (village), a little to the north-west of the valley,—Aūlūgh-nūr (great rock), at a crossing mentioned by Bābur, higher up the Bārān-water,—and Koh-i-nūr (Rocky-mountains), which there is ground for taking as the correct form of the familiar "Kunar" of some European writers (Raverty's _Notes_, p. 106). The dominant feature in these places dictates reading _nūr_ as rock; so too the work done in Nūr-valley with boulders, of which Colonel H. G. Tanner's interesting account is subjoined (P.R.G.S. 1881, p. 284).

"Some 10 miles from the source of the main stream of the Nur-valley the Dameneh stream enters, but the waters of the two never meet; they flow side by side about three-quarters of a mile apart for about 12 miles and empty themselves into the Kunar river by different mouths, each torrent hugging closely the foot of the hills at its own side of the valley. Now, except in countries where terracing has been practised continuously for thousands of years, such unnatural topography as exists in the valley of Nur is next to impossible. The forces which were sufficient to scoop out the valley in the first instance, would have kept a water-way at the lowest part, into which would have poured the drainage of the surrounding mountains; but in the Nur-valley long-continued terracing has gradually raised the centre of the valley high above the edges. The population has increased to its maximum limit and every available inch of ground is required for cultivation; the people, by means of terrace-walls built of ponderous boulders in the bed of the original single stream, have little by little pushed the waters out of their true course, until they run, where now found, in deep rocky cuttings at the foot of the hills on either side" (p. 280).

"I should like to go on and say a good deal more about boulders; and while I am about it I may as well mention one that lies back from a hamlet in Shulut, which is so big that a house is built in a fault or crack running across its face. Another pebble lies athwart the village and covers the whole of the houses from that side."

G.—ON THE NAMES OF TWO DARA-I-NŪR WINES.

From the two names, Arat-tāshī and Sūhān (Suhār) -tāshī, which Bābur gives as those of two wines of the Dara-i-nūr, it can be inferred that he read _nūr_ to mean rock. For if in them Turkī _tāsh_, rock, be replaced by Pushtū _nūr_, rock, two place-names emerge, Arat (-nūrī) and Sūhān (-nūrī), known in the Nūr-valley.

These may be villages where the wines were grown, but it would be quite exceptional for Bābur to say that wines are called from their villages, or indeed by any name. He says here not where they grow but what they are called.

I surmise that he is repeating a joke, perhaps his own, perhaps a standing local one, made on the quality of the wines. For whether with _tāsh_ or with _nūr_ (rock), the names can be translated as Rock-saw and Rock-file, and may refer to the rough and acid quality of the wines, rasping and setting the teeth on edge as does iron on stone.

The villages themselves may owe their names to a serrated edge or splintered pinnacle of weathered granite, in which local people, known as good craftsmen, have seen resemblance to tools of their trade.

H.—ON THE COUNTERMARK BIH BŪD ON COINS.

As coins of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā _Bāī-qarā_ and other rulers do actually bear the words _Bih būd_, Bābur's statement that the name of Bihbūd Beg was on the Mīrzā's coins acquires a numismatic interest which may make serviceable the following particulars concerning the passage and the beg.[2782]

_a. The Turkī passage_ (Elph. MS. f. 135_b_; Ḥaidarābād Codex
f. 173_b_; Ilminsky p. 217).

For ease of reference the Turkī, Persian and English version are subjoined:—

(1) _Yana Bihbūd Beg aīdī. Būrūnlār chuhra-jīrga-sī-dā khidmat qīlūr aīdī. Mīrzā-nīng qāzāqlīqlārīdā khidmatī bāqīb Bihbūd Beg-kā bū `ināyatnī qīlīb aīdī kīm tamghā u sikka-dā ānīng ātī aīdī._

(2) The Persian translation of `Abdu'r-raḥīm (Muḥ. Shīrāzī's lith. ed. p. 110):—

_Dīgar Bihbūd Beg būd. Auwalhā dar jīrga-i-chuhrahā khidmat mikard. Chūn dar qāzāqīhā Mīrzārā khidmat karda būd u ānrā mulāḥaẓa namūda, aīnrā `ināyat karda būd kah dar tamghānāt sikka_[2783] _nām-i-au būd._

(3) A literal English translation of the Turkī:—

Another was Bihbūd Beg. He served formerly in the _chuhra-jīrga-sī_ (corps of braves). Looking to his service in the Mīrzā's guerilla-times, the favour had been done to Bihbūd Beg that his name was on the stamp and coin.[2784]

_b. Of Bihbūd Beg._

We have found little so far to add to what Bābur tells of Bihbūd Beg and what he tells we have not found elsewhere. The likely sources of his information are Daulat Shāh and Khwānd-amīr who have written at length of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_. Considerable search in the books of both men has failed to discover mention of signal service or public honour connected with the beg. Bābur may have heard what he tells in Harāt in 912 AH. (1506 AD.) when he would see Ḥusain's coins presumably; but later opportunity to see them must have been frequent during his campaigns and visits north of Hindū-kush, notably in Balkh.

The sole mention we have found of Bihbūd Beg in the _Ḥabību's-siyar_ is that he was one of Ḥusain's commanders at the battle of Chīkmān-sarāī which was fought with Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā _Mīrānshāhī_ in Muḥarram 876 AH. (June-July 1471 AD.).[2785] His place in the list shews him to have had importance. "Amīr Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī-sher's brother Darwesh-i-`alī the librarian (_q.v._ Ḥai. Codex Index), and Amīr Bihbūd, and Muḥ. `Alī _ātāka_, and Bakhshīka and Shāh Walī _Qīpchāq_, and Dost-i-muḥammad _chuhra_, and Amīr Qul-i-`alī, and" (another).

The total of our information about the man is therefore:—

(1) That when Ḥusain[2786] from 861 to 873 AH. (1457 to 1469 AD.) was fighting his way up to the throne of Harāt, Bihbūd served him well in the corps of braves, (as many others will have done).

(2) That he was a beg and one of Ḥusain's commanders in 876 AH. (1471 AD.).

(3) That Bābur includes him amongst Ḥusain's begs and says of him what has been quoted, doing this _circa_ 934 AH. (1528 AD.), some 56 years after Khwānd-amīr's mention of him _s.a._ 876 AH. (1471 AD.).

_c. Of the term chuhra-jīrga-sī used by Bābur._

Of this term Bābur supplies an explicit explanation which I have not found in European writings. His own book amply exemplifies his explanation, as do also Khwānd-amīr's and Ḥaidar's.

He gives the explanation (f. 15_b_) when describing a retainer of his father's who afterwards became one of his own begs. It is as follows:—

"`Alī-darwesh of Khurāsān served in the Khurāsān _chuhra-jīrga-sī_, one of two special corps (_khāṣa tābīn_) of serviceable braves (_yārār yīgītlār_) formed by Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā when he first began to arrange the government of Khurāsān and Samarkand and, presumably, called by him the Khurāsān corps and the Samarkand corps."

This shews the circle to have consisted of fighting-men, such serviceable braves as are frequently mentioned by Bābur; and his words "_yārār yīgīt_" make it safe to say that if instead of using a Persian phrase, he had used a Turkī one, _yīgīt_, brave would have replaced _chuhra_, "young soldier" (Erskine). A considerable number of men on active service are styled _chuhra_, one at least is styled _yīgīt_, in the same way as others are styled _beg_.[2787]

Three military circles are mentioned in the _Bābur-nāma_, consisting respectively of braves, household begs (under Bābur's own command), and great begs. Some men are mentioned who never rose from the rank of brave (_yīgīt_), some who became household-begs, some who went through the three grades.

Of the corps of braves Bābur conveys the information that Abū-sa`īd founded it at a date which will have lain between 1451 and 1457 AD.; that `Umar Shaikh's man `Alī-darwesh belonged to it; and that Ḥusain's man Bihbūd did so also. Both men, `Ali-darwesh and Bihbūd, when in its circle, would appropriately be styled _chuhra_ as men of the beg-circle were styled beg; the Dost-i-muḥammad _chuhra_ who was a commander, (he will have had a brave's command,) at Chīkmān-sarāī (_see_ list _supra_) will also have been of this circle. Instances of the use by Bābur of the name _khaṣa-tābīn_ and its equivalent _būītīkīnī_ are shewn on f. 209 and f. 210_b_. A considerable number of Bābur's fighting men, the braves he so frequently mentions as sent on service, are styled _chuhra_ and inferentially belong to the same circle.[2788]

_d. Of Bih būd on Ḥusain Bāī-qarā's coins._

So far it does not seem safe to accept Bābur's statement literally. He may tell a half-truth and obscure the rest by his brevity.

Nothing in the sources shows ground for signal and public honour to Bihbūd Beg, but a good deal would allow surmise that jesting allusion to his name might decide for _Bih būd_ as a coin mark when choice had to be made of one, in the flush of success, in an assembly of the begs, and, amongst those begs, lovers of word-play and enigma.

The personal name is found written Bihbūd, as one word and with medial _h_; the mark is _Bih būd_ with the terminal _h_ in the _Bih_. There have been discussions moreover as to whether to read on the coins _Bih būd_, it was good, or _Bih buvad_, let it be, or become, good (valid for currency?).

The question presents itself; would the beg's name have appeared on the coins, if it had not coincided in form with a suitable coin-mark?

Against literal acceptance of Bābur's statement there is also doubt of a thing at once so _ben trovato_ and so unsupported by evidence.

Another doubt arises from finding _Bih būd_ on coins of other rulers, one of Iskandar Khan's being of a later date,[2789] others, of Tīmūr, Shāhrukh and Abū-sa`īd, with nothing to shew who counterstruck it on them.

On some of Ḥusain's coins the sentence _Bih būd_ appears as part of the legend and not as a counterstrike. This is a good basis for finding a half-truth in Bābur's statement. It does not allow of a whole-truth in his statement because, as it is written, it is a coin-mark, not a name.

An interesting matter as bearing on Ḥusain's use of _Bih būd_ is that in 865 AH. (1461 AD.) he had an incomparable horse named Bihbūd, one he gave in return for a falcon on making peace with Mustapha Khān.[2790]

_e. Of Bābur's vassal-coinage._

The following historical details narrow the field of numismatic observation on coins believed struck by Bābur as a vassal of Ismā`īl _Ṣafawī_. They are offered because not readily accessible.

The length of Bābur's second term of rule in Transoxiana was not the three solar years of the B.M. Coin Catalogues but did not exceed eight months. He entered Samarkand in the middle of Rajab 917 AH. (_c._ Oct. 1st, 1511 AD.). He returned to it defeated and fled at once, after the battle of Kūl-i-malik which was fought in Ṣafar 918 AH. (mid-April to mid-May 1512 AD.). Previous to the entry he was in the field, without a fixed base; after his flight he was landless till at the end both of 920 AH. and of 1514 AD. he had returned to Kābul.

He would not find a full Treasury in Samarkand because the Aūzbegs evacuated the fort at their own time; eight months would not give him large tribute in kind. He failed in Transoxiana because he was the ally of a Shī`a; would coins bearing the Shī`a legend have passed current from a Samarkand mint? These various circumstances suggest that he could not have struck many coins of any kind in Samarkand.

The coins classed in the B.M. Catalogues as of Bābur's vassalage, offer a point of difficulty to readers of his own writings, inasmuch as neither the "Sulṯān Muḥammad" of No. 652 (gold), nor the "Sulṯān Bābur Bahādur" of the silver coins enables confident acceptance of them as names he himself would use.

I.—ON THE WEEPING-WILLOWS OF f. 190_b_.

The passage omitted from f. 190_b_, which seems to describe something decorative done with weeping willows, (_bed-i-mawallah_) has been difficult to all translators. This may be due to inaccurate pointing in Bābur's original MS. or may be what a traveller seeing other willows at another feast could explain.

The first Persian translation omits the passage (I.O. 215 f. 154_b_); the second varies from the Turkī, notably by changing _sāch_ and _sāj_ to _shākh_ throughout (I.O. 217 f. 150_b_). The English and French translations differ much (_Memoirs_ p. 206, _Mémoires_ i, 414), the latter taking the _mawallah_ to be _mūla_, a hut, against which much is clear in the various MSS.

Three Turkī sources[2791] agree in reading as follows:—

_Mawallahlār-nī_ (or _muwallah_ Ḥai. MS.) _kīltūrdīlār. Bīlmān sāchlārī-nīng yā `amlī sāchlārī-nīng ārālārīgha k:msān-nī_ (Ilminsky, _kamān_) _shākh-nīng_ (Ḥai. MS. _șākh_) _aūzūnlūghī bīla aīnjīga aīnjīga kīsīb, qūīūb tūrlār._

The English and French translations differ from the Turkī and from one another:—

(_Memoirs_, p. 206) They brought in branching willow-trees. I do not know if they were in the natural state of the tree, or if the branches were formed artificially, but they had small twigs cut the length of the ears of a bow and inserted between them.

(_Mémoires_ i, 434) On façonna des huttes (_mouleh_). Ils les établissent en taillant des baguettes minces, de la longeur du bout recourbé de l'arc, qu'on place entre des branches naturelles ou façonnées artificiellement, je l'ignore.

The construction of the sentence appears to be thus:—_Mawal-lahlār-nī kīltūrdīlār_, they brought weeping-willows; _k:msān-nī_ _qūīūbtūrlār_, they had put _k:msān-nī_; _aīnjīga aīnjīga kīsīb_, cut very fine (or slender); _shākh_ (or _șākh_)_-nīng aūzūnlūghī_, of the length of a _shākh_, bow, or _șākh_ ...; _bīlmān sāchlārī-nīng yā `amlī sāchlārī-nīng ārālārīgha_, to (or at) the spaces of the _sāchlār_ whether their (_i.e._ the willows') own or artificial _sāchlār_.

These translations clearly indicate felt difficulty. Mr. Erskine does not seem to have understood that the trees were _Salix babylonica_. The crux of the passage is the word _k:msān-nī_, which tells what was placed in the spaces. It has been read as _kamān_, bow, by all but the scribes of the two good Turkī MSS. and as in a phrase _horn of a bow_. This however is not allowed by the Turkī, for the reason that _k:msān-nī_ is not in the genitive but in the accusative case. (I may say that Bābur does not use _nī_ for _nīng_; he keeps strictly to the prime uses of each enclitic, _nī_ accusative, _nīng_ genitive.) Moreover, if _k:msān-nī_ be taken as a genitive, the verbs _qūīūb-tūrlār_ and _kīsīb_ have no object, no other accusative appearing in the sentence than _k:msān-nī_.

A weighty reason against changing _sāch_ into _shākh_ is that Dr. Ilminsky has not done so. He must have attached meaning to _sāch_ since he uses it throughout the passage. He was nearer the region wherein the original willows were seen at a feast. Unfortunately nothing shows how he interpreted the word.

_Sāchmāq_ is a tassel; is it also a catkin and were there decorations, _kimsān-nī_ (things _kimsa_, or flowers Ar. _kim_, or something shining, _kimcha_, gold brocade) hung in between the catkins?

Ilminsky writes _mu'lah_ (with _ḥamza_) and this de Courteille translates by hut. The Ḥai. MS. writes _muwallah_ (marking the _ẓamma_).

In favour of reading _mawallah_ (_mulah_) as a tree and that tree _Salix babylonica_ the weeping-willow, there are annotations in the Second Persian translation and, perhaps following it, in the Elphinstone MS. of _nām-i-dirakht_, name of a tree, _dīdān-i-bed_, sight of the willow, _bed-i-mawallah_, mournful-willow. Standing alone _mawallah_ means weeping-willow, in this use answering to _majnūn_ the name Panj-ābīs give the tree, from Leila's lover the distracted _i.e._ Majnūn (Brandis).

The whole question may be solved by a chance remark from a traveller witnessing similar festive decoration at another feast in that conservative region.

J.—ON BĀBUR'S EXCAVATED CHAMBER AT QANDAHĀR (f. 208_b_).

Since making my note (f. 208_b_) on the wording of the passage in which Bābur mentions excavation done by him at Qandahār, I have learned that he must be speaking of the vaulted chamber containing the celebrated inscriptions about which much has been written.[2792]

The primary inscription, the one commemorating Bābur's final possession of Qandahār, gives the chamber the character of a Temple of Victory and speaks of it as _Rawāq-i-jahān namāī_, World-shewing-portal,[2793] doubtless because of its conspicuous position and its extensive view, probably also in allusion to its declaration of victory. Mīr Ma`ṣūm writes of it as a Pesh-ṯāq, frontal arch, which, coupled with Mohan Lall's word arch (_ṯāq_) suggests that the chamber was entered through an arch pierced in a parallelogram smoothed on the rock and having resemblance to the _pesh-tāq_ of buildings, a suggestion seeming the more probable that some inscriptions are on the "wings" of the arch. But by neither of the above-mentioned names do Mohan Lall and later travellers call the chamber or write of the place; all describe it by its approach of forty steps, Chihil-zīna.[3]

The excavation has been chipped out of the white-veined limestone of the bare ridge on and below which stood Old Qandahār.[2794] It does not appear from the descriptions to have been on the summit of the ridge; Bellew says that the forty steps start half-way up the height. I have found no estimate of the height of the ridge, or statement that the steps end at the chamber. The ridge however seems to have been of noticeably dominating height. It rises steeply to the north and there ends in the naze of which Bābur writes. The foot of the steps is guarded by two towers. Mohan Lall, unaccustomed to mountains, found their ascent steep and dizzy. The excavated chamber of the inscriptions, which Bellew describes as "bow-shaped and dome-roofed", he estimated as 12 feet at the highest point, 12 feet deep and 8 feet wide. Two sculptured beasts guard the entrance; Bellew calls them leopards but tigers would better symbolize the watch and ward of the Tiger Bābur. In truth the whole work, weary steps of approach, tiger guardians, commemorative chamber, laboriously incised words, are admirably symbolic of his long-sustained resolve and action, taken always with Hindūstān as the goal.

There are several inscriptions of varying date, within and without the chamber. Mohan Lall saw and copied them; Darmesteter worked on a copy; the two English observers Lumsden and Bellew made no attempt at correct interpretation. In the versions all give there are inaccuracies, arising from obvious causes, especially from want of historical _data_. The last word has not been said; revision awaits photography and the leisured expert. A part of the needed revision has been done by Beames, who deals with the geography of what Mīr Ma`ṣūm himself added under Akbar after he had gone as Governor to Qandahār in 1007 AH. (1598 AD.). This commemorates not Bābur's but Akbar's century of cities.

It is the primary inscription only which concerns this Appendix. This is one in relief in the dome of the chamber, recording in florid Persian that Abū'l-ghāzī Bābur took possession of Qandahār on Shawwāl 13th 928 AH. (Sep. 1st 1522 AD.), that in the same year he commanded the construction of this _Rawāq-i-jahān-namāī_, and that the work had been completed by his son Kāmrān at the time he made over charge of Qandahār to his brother `Askarī in 9 ... (mutilated). After this the gravure changes in character.

In the above, Bābur's title Abū'l-ghāzī fixes the date of the inscription as later than the battle of Kanwāha (f. 324_b_), because it was assumed in consequence of this victory over a Hindū, in March 1527 (Jumāda II 933 AH.).

The mutilated date 9 ... is given by Mohan Lall as 952 AH. but this does not suit several circumstances, _e.g._ it puts completion too far beyond the time mentioned as consumed by the work, nine years,—and it was not that at which Kāmrān made over charge to `Askarī, but followed the expulsion of both full-brothers from Qandahār by their half-brother Humāyūn.

The mutilated date 9 ... is given by Darmesteter as 933 AH. but this again does not fit the historical circumstance that Kāmrān was in Qandahār after that date and till 937 AH. This date (937 AH.) we suggest as fitting to replace the lost figures, (1) because in that year and after his father's death, Kāmrān gave the town to `Askarī and went himself to Hindūstān, and (2) because work begun in 928 AH. and recorded as occupying 70-80 men for nine years would be complete in 937 AH.[2795] The inscription would be one of the last items of the work.

The following matters are added here because indirectly connected with what has been said and because not readily accessible.

_a. Birth of Kāmrān._

Kāmrān's birth falling in a year of one of the _Bābur-nāma_ gaps, is nowhere mentioned. It can be closely inferred as 914 or 915 AH. from the circumstances that he was younger than Humāyūn born late in 913 AH., that it is not mentioned in the fragment of the annals of 914 AH., and that he was one of the children enumerated by Gul-badan as going with her father to Samarkand in 916 AH. (Probably the children did not start with their father in the depth of winter across the mountains.) Possibly the joyful name Kāmrān is linked to the happy issue of the Mughūl rebellion of 914 AH. Kāmrān would thus be about 18 when left in charge of Kābul and Qandahār by Bābur in 932 AH. before the start for the fifth expedition to Hindūstān.

A letter from Bābur to Kāmrān in Qandahār is with Kehr's Latin version of the _Bābur-nāma_, in Latin and entered on the lining of the cover. It is shewn by its main topic _viz._ the despatch of Ibrāhīm _Lūdī_'s son to Kāmrān's charge, to date somewhere close to Jan. 3rd 1527 (Rabī`u'l-awwal 29th 933 AH.) because on that day Bābur writes of the despatch (Ḥai. Codex f. 306_b_ foot).

Presumably the letter was with Kāmrān's own copy of the _Bābur-nāma_. That copy may have reached Humāyūn's hands (JRAS 1908 p. 828 _et seq._). The next known indication of the letter is given in St. Petersburg by Dr. Kehr. He will have seen it or a copy of it with the B.N. Codex he copied (one of unequaled correctness), and he, no doubt, copied it in its place on the fly-leaf or board of his own transcript, but if so, it has disappeared.

Fuller particulars of it and of other items accompanying it are given in JRAS 1908 p. 828 _et seq._

K.—AN AFGHĀN LEGEND.

My husband's article in the Asiatic Quarterly Review of April 1901 begins with an account of the two MSS. from which it is drawn, _viz._ I.O. 581 in Pushtū, I.O. 582 in Persian. Both are mainly occupied with an account of the Yūsuf-zāī. The second opens by telling of the power of the tribe in Afghānistān and of the kindness of Malik Shāh Sulaimān, one of their chiefs, to Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā _Kābulī_, (Bābur's paternal uncle,) when he was young and in trouble, presumably as a boy ruler.

It relates that one day a wise man of the tribe, Shaikh `Us̤mān saw Sulaimān sitting with the young Mīrzā on his knee and warned him that the boy had the eyes of Yazīd and would destroy him and his family as Yazīd had destroyed that of the Prophet. Sulaimān paid him no attention and gave the Mīrzā his daughter in marriage. Subsequently the Mīrzā having invited the Yūsuf-zāī to Kābul, treacherously killed Sulaimān and 700 of his followers. They were killed at the place called Siyāh-sang near Kābul; it is still known, writes the chronicler in about 1770 AD. (1184 AH.), as the Grave of the Martyrs. Their tombs are revered and that of Shaikh `Us̤mān in particular.

Shāh Sulaimān was the eldest of the seven sons of Malik Tāju'd-dīn; the second was Sulṯān Shāh, the father of Malik Aḥmad. Before Sulaimān was killed he made three requests of Aūlūgh Beg; one of them was that his nephew Aḥmad's life might be spared. This was granted.

Aūlūgh Beg died (after ruling from 865 to 907 AH.), and Bābur defeated his son-in-law and successor M. Muqīm (_Arghūn_, 910 AH.). Meantime the Yūsuf-zāī had migrated to Pashāwar but later on took Sawād from Sl. Wais (Ḥai. Codex ff. 219, 220_b_, 221).

When Bābur came to rule in Kābul, he at first professed friendship for the Yūsuf-zāī but became prejudiced against them through their enemies the Dilazāk[2796] who gave force to their charges by a promised subsidy of 70,000 _shāhrukhī_. Bābur therefore determined, says the Yūsuf-zāī chronicler, to kill Malik[2797] Aḥmad and so wrote him a friendly invitation to Kābul. Aḥmad agreed to go, and set out with four brothers who were famous musicians. Meanwhile the Dilazāk had persuaded Bābur to put Aḥmad to death at once, for they said Aḥmad was so clever and eloquent that if allowed to speak, he would induce the Pādshāh to pardon him.

On Aḥmad's arrival in Kābul, he is said to have learned that Bābur's real object was his death. His companions wanted to tie their turbans together and let him down over the wall of the fort, but he rejected their proposal as too dangerous for him and them, and resolved to await his fate. He told his companions however, except one of the musicians, to go into hiding in the town.

Next morning there was a great assembly and Bābur sat on the daïs-throne. Aḥmad made his reverence on entering but Bābur's only acknowledgment was to make bow and arrow ready to shoot him. When Aḥmad saw that Bābur's intention was to shoot him down without allowing him to speak, he unbuttoned his jerkin and stood still before the Pādshāh. Bābur, astonished, relaxed the tension of his bow and asked Aḥmad what he meant. Aḥmad's only reply was to tell the Pādshāh not to question him but to do what he intended. Bābur again asked his meaning and again got the same reply.

Bābur put the same question a third time, adding that he could not dispose of the matter without knowing more. Then Aḥmad opened the mouth of praise, expatiated on Bābur's excellencies and said that in this great assemblage many of his subjects were looking on to see the shooting; that his jerkin being very thick, the arrow might not pierce it; the shot might fail and the spectators blame the Pādshāh for missing his mark; for these reasons he had thought it best to bare his breast. Bābur was so pleased by this reply that he resolved to pardon Aḥmad at once, and laid down his bow.

Said he to Aḥmad, "What sort of man is Buhlūl _Lūdī_?" "A giver of horses," said Aḥmad.

"And of what sort his son Sikandar?" "A giver of robes."

"And of what sort is Bābur?" "He," said Aḥmad, "is a giver of heads."

"Then," rejoined Bābur, "I give you yours."

The Pādshāh now became quite friendly with Aḥmad, came down from his throne, took him by the hand and led him into another room where they drank together. Three times did Bābur have his cup filled, and after drinking a portion, give the rest to Aḥmad. At length the wine mounted to Bābur's head; he grew merry and began to dance. Meantime Aḥmad's musician played and Aḥmad who knew Persian well, poured out an eloquent harangue. When Bābur had danced for some time, he held out his hands to Aḥmad for a reward (_bakhshīsh_), saying, "I am your performer." Three times did he open his hands, and thrice did Aḥmad, with a profound reverence, drop a gold coin into them. Bābur took the coins, each time placing his hand on his head. He then took off his robe and gave it to Aḥmad; Aḥmad took off his own coat, gave it to Adu the musician, and put on what the Pādshāh had given.

Aḥmad returned safe to his tribe. He declined a second invitation to Kābul, and sent in his stead his brother Shāh Manṣūr. Manṣūr received speedy dismissal as Bābur was displeased at Aḥmad's not coming. On his return to his tribe Manṣūr advised them to retire to the mountains and make a strong _sangur_. This they did; as foretold, Bābur came into their country with a large army. He devastated their lands but could make no impression on their fort. In order the better to judge of its character, he, as was his wont, disguised himself as a Qalandar, and went with friends one dark night to the Mahūra hill where the stronghold was, a day's journey from the Pādshāh's camp at Dīārūn.

It was the `Īd-i-qurbān and there was a great assembly and feasting at Shāh Manṣūr's house, at the back of the Mahūra-mountain, still known as Shāh Manṣūr's throne. Bābur went in his disguise to the back of the house and stood among the crowd in the courtyard. He asked servants as they went to and fro about Shāh Manṣūr's family and whether he had a daughter. They gave him straightforward answers.

At the time Musammat Bībī Mubāraka, Shāh Manṣur's daughter was sitting with other women in a tent. Her eye fell on the qalandars and she sent a servant to Bābur with some cooked meat folded between two loaves. Bābur asked who had sent it; the servant said it was Shāh Manṣūr's daughter Bībī Mubāraka. "Where is she?" "That is she, sitting in front of you in the tent." Bābur Pādshāh became entranced with her beauty and asked the woman-servant, what was her disposition and her age and whether she was betrothed. The servant replied by extolling her mistress, saying that her virtue equalled her beauty, that she was pious and brimful of rectitude and placidity; also that she was not betrothed. Bābur then left with his friends, and behind the house hid between two stones the food that had been sent to him.

He returned to camp in perplexity as to what to do; he saw he could not take the fort; he was ashamed to return to Kābul with nothing effected; moreover he was in the fetters of love. He therefore wrote in friendly fashion to Malik Aḥmad and asked for the daughter of Shāh Manṣūr, son of Shāh Sulaimān. Great objection was made and earlier misfortunes accruing to Yūsuf-zāī chiefs who had given daughters to Aūlūgh Beg and Sl. Wais (Khān Mīrzā?) were quoted. They even said they had no daughter to give. Bābur replied with a "beautiful" royal letter, told of his visit disguised to Shāh Manṣūr's house, of his seeing Bībī Mubāraka and as token of the truth of his story, asked them to search for the food he had hidden. They searched and found. Aḥmad and Manṣūr were still averse, but the tribesmen urged that as before they had always made sacrifice for the tribe so should they do now, for by giving the daughter in marriage, they would save the tribe from Bābur's anger. The Maliks then said that it should be done "for the good of the tribe".

When their consent was made known to Bābur, the drums of joy were beaten and preparations were made for the marriage; presents were sent to the bride, a sword of his also, and the two Maliks started out to escort her. They are said to have come from Thana by M`amūra (?), crossed the river at Chakdara, taken a narrow road between two hills and past Talāsh-village to the back of Tīrī (?) where the Pādshāh's escort met them. The Maliks returned, spent one night at Chakdara and next morning reached their homes at the Mahūra _sangur_.

Meanwhile Runa the nurse who had control of Malik Manṣūr's household, with two other nurses and many male and female servants, went on with Bībī Mubāraka to the royal camp. The bride was set down with all honour at a large tent in the middle of the camp.

That night and on the following day the wives of the officers came to visit her but she paid them no attention. So, they said to one another as they were returning to their tents, "Her beauty is beyond question, but she has shewn us no kindness, and has not spoken to us; we do not know what mystery there is about her."

Now Bībī Mubāraka had charged her servants to let her know when the Pādshāh was approaching in order that she might receive him according to Malik Aḥmad's instructions. They said to her, "That was the pomp just now of the Pādshāh's going to prayers at the general mosque." That same day after the Mid-day Prayer, the Pādshāh went towards her tent. Her servants informed her, she immediately left her divan and advancing, lighted up the carpet by her presence, and stood respectfully with folded hands. When the Pādshāh entered, she bowed herself before him. But her face remained entirely covered. At length the Pādshāh seated himself on the divan and said to her, "Come Afghāniya, be seated." Again she bowed before him, and stood as before. A second time he said, "Afghāniya, be seated." Again she prostrated herself before him and came a little nearer, but still stood. Then the Pādshāh pulled the veil from her face and beheld incomparable beauty. He was entranced, he said again, "O, Afghāniya, sit down." Then she bowed herself again, and said, "I have a petition to make. If an order be given, I will make it." The Pādshāh said kindly, "Speak." Whereupon she with both hands took up her dress and said, "Think that the whole Yūsuf-zāī tribe is enfolded in my skirt, and pardon their offences for my sake." Said the Pādshāh, "I forgive the Yūsuf-zāī all their offences in thy presence, and cast them all into thy skirt. Hereafter I shall have no ill-feeling to the Yūsuf-zāī." Again she bowed before him; the Pādshāh took her hand and led her to the divan.

When the Afternoon Prayer time came and the Pādshāh rose from the divan to go to prayers, Bībī Mubāraka jumped up and fetched him his shoes.[2798] He put them on and said very pleasantly, "I am extremely pleased with you and your tribe and I have pardoned them all for your sake." Then he said with a smile, "We know it was Malik Aḥmad taught you all these ways." He then went to prayers and the Bībī remained to say hers in the tent.

After some days the camp moved from Dīārūn and proceeded by Bajaur and Tankī to Kābul.[2799]...

Bībī Mubāraka, the Blessed Lady, is often mentioned by Gul-badan; she had no children; and lived an honoured life, as her chronicler says, until the beginning of Akbar's reign, when she died. Her brother Mīr Jamāl rose to honour under Bābur, Humāyūn and Akbar.

L.—ON MĀHĪM'S ADOPTION OF HIND-ĀL.

The passage quoted below about Māhīm's adoption of the unborn Hind-āl we have found so far only in Kehr's transcript of the _Bābur-nāma_ (_i.e._ the St. Petersburg Foreign Office Codex). Ilminsky reproduced it (Kāsān imprint p. 281) and de Courteille translated it (ii, 45), both with endeavour at emendation. It is interpolated in Kehr's MS. at the wrong place, thus indicating that it was once marginal or apart from the text.

I incline to suppose the whole a note made by Humāyūn, although part of it might be an explanation made by Bābur, at a later date, of an over-brief passage in his diary. Of such passages there are several instances. What is strongly against its being Bābur's where otherwise it might be his, is that Māhīm, as he always calls her simply, is there written of as Ḥaẓrat Wālida, Royal Mother and with the honorific plural. That plural Bābur uses for his own mother (dead 14 years before 925 AH.) and never for Māhīm. The note is as follows:—

"The explanation is this:—As up to that time those of one birth (_tūqqān_, womb) with him (Humāyūn), that is to say a son Bār-būl, who was younger than he but older than the rest, and three daughters, Mihr-jān and two others, died in childhood, he had a great wish for one of the same birth with him.[2800] I had said 'What it would have been if there had been one of the same birth with him!' (Humāyūn). Said the Royal Mother, 'If Dil-dār Āghācha bear a son, how is it if I take him and rear him?' 'It is very good' said I."

So far doubtfully _might_ be Bābur's but it may be Humāyūn's written as a note for Bābur. What follows appears to be by some-one who knew the details of Māhīm's household talk and was in Kābul when Dil-dār's child was taken from her.

"Seemingly women have the custom of taking omens in the following way:—When they have said, 'Is it to be a boy? is it to be a girl?' they write `Alī or Ḥasan on one of two pieces of paper and Fāṯima on the other, put each paper into a ball of clay and throw both into a bowl of water. Whichever opens first is taken as an omen; if the man's, they say a man-child will be born; if the woman's, a girl will be born. They took the omen; it came out a man."

"On this glad tidings we at once sent letters off.[2801] A few days later God's mercy bestowed a son. Three days before the news[2802] and three days after the birth, they[2803] took the child from its mother, (she) willy-nilly, brought it to our house[2804] and took it in their charge. When we sent the news of the birth, Bhīra was being taken. They named him Hind-āl for a good omen and benediction."[2805]

The whole may be Humāyūn's, and prompted by a wish to remove an obscurity his father had left and by sentiment stirred through reminiscence of a cherished childhood.

Whether Humāyūn wrote the whole or not, how is it that the passage appears only in the Russian group of Bāburiana?

An apparent answer to this lies in the following little mosaic of circumstances:—The St. Petersburg group of Bāburiana[2806] is linked to Kāmrān's own copy of the _Bābur-nāma_ by having with it a letter of Bābur to Kāmrān and also what _may be_ a note indicating its passage into Humāyūn's hands (JRAS 1908 p. 830). If it did so pass, a note by Humāyūn may have become associated with it, in one of several obvious ways. This would be at a date earlier than that of the Elphinstone MS. and would explain why it is found in Russia and not in Indian MSS.[2807]

[APPENDICES TO THE HINDŪSTĀN SECTION.]

M.—ON THE TERM _BAḤRĪ QŪT̤ĀS_.

That the term _baḥrī qūṯās_ is interpreted by Meninski, Erskine, and de Courteille in senses so widely differing as _equus maritimus_, mountain-cow, and _bœuf vert de mer_ is due, no doubt, to their writing when the _qūṯās_, the yāk, was less well known than it now is.

The word _qūṯās_ represents both the yāk itself and its neck-tassel and tail. Hence Meninski explains it by _nodus fimbriatus ex cauda seu crinibus equi maritimi_. His "sea-horse" appears to render _baḥrī qūṯās_, and is explicable by the circumstance that the same purposes are served by horse-tails and by yāk-tails and tassels, namely, with both, standards are fashioned, horse-equipage is ornamented or perhaps furnished with fly-flappers, and the ordinary hand-fly-flappers are made, _i.e._ the _chowries_ of Anglo-India.

Erskine's "mountain-cow" (_Memoirs_ p. 317) may well be due to his _munshī's_ giving the yāk an alternative name, _viz._ _Kosh-gau_ (Vigne) or _Khāsh-gau_ (Ney Elias), which appears to mean mountain-cow (cattle, oxen).[2808]

De Courteille's _Dictionary_ p. 422, explains _qūtās_ (_qūṯās_) as _bœuf marin_ (_baḥrī qūṯās_) and his _Mémoires_ ii, 191, renders Bābur's _baḥrī qūṯās_ by _bœuf vert de mer_ (f. 276, p. 490 and n. 8).

The term _baḥrī qūṯās_ could be interpreted with more confidence if one knew where the seemingly Arabic-Turkī compound originated.[2809] Bābur uses it in Hindūstān where the neck-tassel and the tail of the domestic yāk are articles of commerce, and where, as also probably in Kābul, he will have known of the same class of yāk as a saddle-animal and as a beast of burden into Kashmīr and other border-lands of sufficient altitude to allow its survival. A part of its wide Central Asian habitat abutting on Kashmīr is Little Tibet, through which flows the upper Indus and in which tame yāk are largely bred, Skardo being a place specially mentioned by travellers as having them plentifully. This suggests that the term _baḥrī qūṯās_ is due to the great river (_baḥr_) and that those of which Bābur wrote in Hindūstān were from Little Tibet and its great river. But _baḥrī_ may apply to another region where also the domestic yāk abounds, that of the great lakes, inland seas such as Pangong, whence the yāk comes and goes between _e.g._ Yārkand and the Hindūstān border.

The second suggestion, _viz._ that "_baḥrī qūṯās_" refers to the habitat of the domestic yāk in lake and marsh lands of high altitude (the wild yāk also but, as Tibetan, it is less likely to be concerned here) has support in Dozy's account of the _baḥrī_ falcon, a bird mentioned also by Abū'l-faẓl amongst sporting birds (_Āyīn-i-akbarī_, Blochmann's trs. p. 295):—"_Baḥrī, espèce de faucon le meilleur pour les oiseaux de marais. Ce renseignment explique peut-être l'origine du mot. Marguerite en donne la même etymologie que Tashmend et le Père Guagix. Selon lui ce faucon aurait été appelé ainsi parce qu'il vient de l'autre côté de la mer, mais peut-être dériva-t-il de baḥrī dans le sens de marais, flaque, étang._"

Dr. E. Denison Ross' _Polyglot List of Birds_ (_Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal_ ii, 289) gives to the _Qarā Qīrghāwal_ (Black pheasant) the synonym "Sea-pheasant", this being the literal translation of its Chinese name, and quotes from the Manchū-Chinese "Mirror" the remark that this is a black pheasant but called "sea-pheasant" to distinguish it from other black ones.

It may be observed that Bābur writes of the yāk once only and then of the _baḥrī qūṯās_ so that there is no warrant from him for taking the term to apply to the wild yāk. His cousin and contemporary Ḥaidar Mīrzā, however, mentions the wild yāk twice and simply as the wild _qūṯās_.

The following are random gleanings about "_baḥrī_" and the yāk:—

(1) An instance of the use of the Persian equivalent _daryā'ī_ of _baḥrī_, sea-borne or over-sea, is found in the _Akbar-nāma_ (Bib. Ind. ed. ii, 216) where the African elephant is described as _fīl-i-daryā'ī_.

(2) In Egypt the word _baḥrī_ has acquired the sense of northern, presumably referring to what lies or is borne across its northern sea, the Mediterranean.

(3) Vigne (_Travels in Kashmīr_ ii, 277-8) warns against confounding the _qūch-qār_ _i.e._ the gigantic _moufflon_, Pallas' _Ovis ammon_, with the _Kosh-gau_, the cow of the Kaucasus, _i.e._ the yāk. He says, "Kaucasus (_hodie_ Hindū-kush) was originally from Kosh, and Kosh is applied occasionally as a prefix, _e.g._ _Kosh-gau_, the yāk or ox of the mountain or Kaucasus." He wrote from Skardo in Little Tibet and on the upper Indus. He gives the name of the female yāk as _yāk-mo_ and of the half-breeds with common cows as _bzch_, which class he says is common and of "all colours".

(4) Mr. Ney Elias' notes (_Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ trs. pp. 302 and 466) on the _qūṯās_ are of great interest. He gives the following synonymous names for the wild yāk, _Bos Poëphagus_, _Khāsh-gau_, the Tibetan yāk or Dong.

(5) Hume and Henderson (_Lāhor to Yārkand_ p. 59) write of the numerous black yāk-hair tents seen round the Pangong Lake, of fine saddle yāks, and of the tame ones as being some white or brown but mostly black.

(6) Olufsen's _Through the Unknown Pamirs_ (p. 118) speaks of the large numbers of _Bos grunniens_ (yāk) domesticated by the Kirghiz in the Pamirs.

(7) Cf. Gazetteer of India _s.n._ yāk.

(8) Shaikh Zain applies the word _baḥrī_ to the porpoise, when paraphrasing the _Bābur-nāma_ f. 281_b_.

N.—NOTES ON A FEW BIRDS.

In attempting to identify some of the birds of Bābur's lists difficulty arises from the variety of names provided by the different tongues of the region concerned, and also in some cases by the application of one name to differing birds. The following random gleanings enlarge and, in part, revise some earlier notes and translations of Mr. Erskine's and my own. They are offered as material for the use of those better acquainted with bird-lore and with Himālayan dialects.

_a._ _Concerning the lūkha_, _lūja_, _lūcha_, _kūja_ (f.135 and f.278_b_).

The nearest word I have found to _lūkha_ and its similars is _likkh_, a florican (Jerdon, ii, 615), but the florican has not the chameleon colours of the _lūkha_ (var.). As Bābur when writing in Hindūstān, uses such "book-words" as Ar. _baḥrī_ (_qūṯās_) and Ar. _bū-qalamūn_ (chameleon), it would not be strange if his name for the "_lūkha_" bird represented Ar. _awja_, very beautiful, or connected with Ar. _loḥ_, shining splendour.

The form _kūja_ is found in Ilminsky's imprint p.361 (_Mémoires_ ii, 198, _koudjeh_).

What is confusing to translators is that (as it now seems to me) Bābur appears to use the name _kabg-i-darī_ in both passages (f.135 and f.278_b_) to represent two birds; (1) he compares the _lūkha_ as to size with the _kabg-i-darī_ of the Kābul region, and (2) for size and colour with that of Hindūstān. But the bird, of the Western Himālayas known by the name _kabg-i-darī_ is the Himālayan snow-cock, _Tetraogallus himālayensis_, Turkī, _aūlār_ and in the Kābul region, _chīūrtika_ (f.249, Jerdon, ii, 549-50); while the _kabg-i-darī_ (syn. _chikor_) of Hindūstān, whether of hill or plain, is one or more of much smaller birds.

The snow-cock being 28 inches in length, the _lūkha_ bird must be of this size. Such birds as to size and plumage of changing colour are the _Lophophori_ and _Trapagons_, varieties of which are found in places suiting Bābur's account of the _lūkha_.

It may be noted that the Himālayan snow-cock is still called _kabg-i-darī_ in Afghānistān (Jerdon, ii, 550) and in Kashmīr (Vigne's _Travels in Kashmīr_ ii, 18). As its range is up to 18,000 feet, its Persian name describes it correctly whether read as "of the mountains" (_dari_), or as "royal" (_darī_) through its splendour.

I add here the following notes of Mr. Erskine's, which I have not quoted already where they occur (cf. f. 135 and f. 278_b_):—

On f. 135, "_lokheh_" is said to mean _hill-chikor_.

On f. 278_b_, to "_lūjeh_", "The Persian has _lūkheh_."

" to "_kepki durrī_", "The _kepkī deri_, or _durri_ is
much larger than the common _kepk_ of Persia
and is peculiar to Khorāsān. It is said to be
a beautiful bird. The common _kepk_ of Persia
and Khorāsān is the _hill-chikor_ of India."

" to "higher up", "The _lujeh_ may be the _chikor_
of the plains which Hunter calls bartavelle or
Greek partridge."

The following corrections are needed about my own notes:—(1) on f. 135 (p. 213) n. 7 is wrongly referred; it belongs to the first word, _viz._ _kabg-i-darī_, of p. 214; (2) on f. 279 (p. 496) n. 2 should refer to the second _kabg-i-darī_.

_b. Birds called mūnāl (var. monāl and moonaul)._

Yule writing in _Hobson Jobson_ (p. 580) of the "_moonaul_" which he identifies as _Lophophorus Impeyanus_, queries whether, on grounds he gives, the word _moonaul_ is connected etymologically with Sanscrit _muni_, an "eremite". In continuation of his topic, I give here the names of other birds called _mūnāl_, which I have noticed in various ornithological works while turning their pages for other information.

Besides _L. Impeyanus_ and _Trapagon Ceriornis satyra_ which Yule mentions as called "_moonaul_", there are _L. refulgens_, _mūnāl_ and _Ghūr_ (mountain)-_mūnāl_; _Trapagon Ceriornis satyra_, called _mūnāl_ in Nipāl; _T. C. melanocephalus_, called _sing_ (horned)-_mūnāl_ in the N.W. Himālayas; _T. himālayensis_, the _jer_- or _cher-mūnāl_ of the same region, known also as _chikor_; and _Lerwa nevicola_, the snow-partridge known in Garhwal as _Quoir_- or _Qūr-mūnāl_. Do all these birds behave in such a way as to suggest that _mūnāl_ may imply the individual isolation related by Jerdon of _L. Impeyanus_, "In the autumnal and winter months numbers are generally collected in the same quarter of the forest, though often so widely scattered that each bird appears to be alone?" My own search amongst vocabularies of hill-dialects for the meaning of the word has been unsuccessful, spite of the long range _mūnāls_ in the Himālayas.

_c. Concerning the word chīūrtika, chourtka._

Jerdon's entry (ii, 549, 554) of the name _chourtka_ as a synonym of _Tetraogallus himālayensis_ enables me to fill a gap I have left on f. 249 (p. 491 and n. 6),[2810] with the name Himālayan snow-cock, and to allow Bābur's statement to be that he, in January 1520 AD. when coming down from the _Bād-i-pīch_ pass, saw many snow-cocks. The _Memoirs_ (p.282) has "_chikors_", which in India is a synonym for _kabg-i-darī_; the _Mémoires_ (ii, 122) has _sauterelles_, but this meaning of _chīūrtika_ does not suit wintry January. That month would suit for the descent from higher altitudes of snow-cocks. Griffith, a botanist who travelled in Afghānistān _cir._ 1838 AD., saw myriads of _cicadæ_ between Qilat-i-ghilzai and Ghazni, but the month was July.

_d._ _On the qūṯān_ (f. 142, p. 224; _Memoirs_, p. 153; _Mémoires_ ii, 313).

Mr. Erskine for _qūṯān_ enters _khawāṣil_ [gold-finch] which he will have seen interlined in the Elphinstone Codex (f. 109_b_) in explanation of _qūṯān_.

Shaikh Effendi (Kunos' ed., p. 139) explains _qūṯān_ to be the gold-finch, _Steiglitz_.

Ilminsky's _qūtān_ (p. 175) is translated by M. de Courteille as _pélicane_ and certainly some copies of the 2nd Persian translation [Muḥ. _Shīrāzi's_ p. 90] have _ḥawāṣil_, pelican.

The pelican would class better than the small finch with the

herons and egrets of Bābur's trio; it also would appear a more likely bird to be caught "with the cord".

That Bābur's _qūṯān_ (_ḥawāṣil_) migrated in great numbers is however against supposing it to be _Pelicanus onocrotatus_ which is seen in India during the winter, because it appears there in moderate numbers only, and Blanford with other ornithologists states that no western pelican migrates largely into India.

Perhaps the _qūṯān_ was Linnæus' _Pelicanus carbo_ of which one synonym is _Carbo comoranus_, the cormorant, a bird seen in India in large numbers of both the large and small varieties. As cormorants are not known to breed in that country, they will have migrated in the masses Bābur mentions.

A translation matter falls to mention here:—After saying that the _aūqār_ (grey heron), _qarqara_ (egret), and _qūtān_ (cormorant) are taken with the cord, Bābur says that this method of bird-catching is unique (_bū nūḥ qūsh tūtmāq ghair muqarrar dūr_) and describes it. The Persian text omits to translate the _tūtmāq_ (by _P. giriftan_); hence Erskine (_Mems._ p. 153) writes, "The last mentioned fowl" (_i.e._ the _qūṯān_) "is rare," notwithstanding Bābur's statement that all three of the birds he names are caught in masses. De Courteille (p. 313) writes, as though only of the _qūtān_, "_ces derniers toutefois ne se prennent qu'accidentelment_," perhaps led to do so by knowledge of the circumstance that _Pelicanus onocrotatus_ is rare in India.

O.—NOTES BY HUMĀYŪN ON SOME HINDŪSTĀN FRUITS.