Kitabı oku: «The Bābur-nāma», sayfa 46

I. – ON THE WEEPING-WILLOWS OF f. 190b

The passage omitted from f. 190b, 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. 154b); the second varies from the Turkī, notably by changing sāch and sāj to shākh throughout (I.O. 217 f. 150b). 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 sources²⁷⁸⁴ 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. 208b)

Since making my note (f. 208b) 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.²⁷⁸⁵

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,²⁷⁸⁶ 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-t̤āq, frontal arch, which, coupled with Mohan Lall’s word arch (t̤āq)

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.²⁷⁸⁷

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. 324b), 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.²⁷⁸⁸ 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. 306b 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 Sult̤ān 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, 220b, 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 Dilazāk²⁷⁸⁹ who gave force to their charges by a promised subsidy of 70,000 shāhrukhī. Bābur therefore determined, says the Yūsuf-zāī chronicler, to kill Malik²⁷⁹⁰ 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.²⁷⁹¹ 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.²⁷⁹²…

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.