1 That is, he was 37 years 3 months by the lunar calendar, and 36 years 1 month by solar reckoning (Pāds͟hāhnāma, i, 69). Elliot and all the MSS. have 8th Jumādā-s̤-s̤ānī as the date of the accession, but this is clearly wrong, as Akbar did not die till 13th Jumādā-s̤-s̤ānī. Evidently the copyists have, as is so often the case, misread bistam as has͟htam. See Blochmann’s remark, p. 454, note 3. That Jahāngīr was not at this time 38 is shown by his stating at p. 37 that he celebrated his 38th birthday at Lahore after the capture of K͟husrau. ↑
3 The couplet appears in Masʿūd’s divan, B.M. MS. Egerton, 701, p. 142a, line 4. The preceding lines show that the dust (gard) referred to in the first line means the dust caused by the invading army. I take the words barū bārhāī to mean the battlements or pinnacles of the fortress, the ī at the end of bārhā being intensive. ↑
4 Erskine’s manuscript translation of the Tūzuk-i-Jahāngīrī, B.M. MS. Add. 26,611, and the B.M. MS. have chīnī, not ḥabs͟hī. But I.O. MS. No. 181 and the R.A.S. MS. have ḥusainī, and this seems right. See Memoirs, Leyden & Erskine, p. 326, and the Haidarabad Turkī text, p. 284. The kis͟hmis͟hī is a small grape like that of which currants are made. ↑
5 Cf. infra the account of the 11th year, p. 173. ↑
6 See Memoirs. L. & E., p. 330. ↑
7 The name rāe bel is not given in Clarke’s Roxburgh, but perhaps it is one of the jessamines, and may be the bela of Clarke (p. 30). The rāe bel is described by Abū-l-faẓl (Blochmann, pp. 76 and 82). The statement about its flowers being double and treble is obscure. Erskine renders the passage “The leaves are generally two and three fold.” The Persian word is t̤abaqa, which apparently is equivalent to the tūī or fold of the Āyīn-i-Akbarī, Persian text, i, 96. The reference may be to the flowers growing in umbels. ↑
8 This is the bokul of Indian gardens (Clarke, p. 313), and well deserves Jahāngīr’s praise. It is probably the bholsārī mentioned in the Āyīn (Blochmann, No. 10, p. 83). Blochmann gives bholsirī (p. 70) as the name of a fruit-tree, and the bholsārī of p. 83 maybe a mistake for mūlsarī. ↑
9 The text has sewtī, but the sewtī seems to be the Rosa glandulifera of Roxburgh (Clarke, p. 407) and has no resemblance to the Pandanus. See also the description of the sewtī, Blochmann, p. 82. (Perhaps there are two sewtīs, one famous for fragrance, the other for beauty. See l.c., pp. 76 and 82.) What is meant in the text is evidently a Pandanus and the ketkī of Blochmann, p. 83. I have followed, therefore, I.O. MS. 181, and have substituted ketkī for sewtī. The ketkī may be Pandanus inermis, which has no thorns (Clarke, p. 708). Erskine also has ketkī. ↑
11 Du Jarric, who got his information from missionary reports, seems to imply that the chain was of silver, and says that Jahāngīr was following the idea of an old Persian king. It is mentioned in the Siyar al-mutaʾak͟hk͟hirīn (reprint, i, 230) that Muḥammad S͟hāh in 1721 revived this, and hung a long chain with a bell attached to it from the octagon tower which looked towards the river. ↑
12 In text this is wrongly made part of regulation 2. ↑
13 Gladwin and the MSS. have dilbahra (exhilarating drink), and this is probably correct. Jahāngīr would know little about rice-spirit. ↑
14 This regulation is more fully expounded in Price, p. 7. ↑
15 It is curious that Jahāngīr should give the 18th Rabīʿu-l-awwal as his birthday, while the authorities give it as the 17th. Probably the mistake has arisen from Jahāngīr’s writing Rabīʿu-l-awwal instead of S͟hahrīwar. His birthday was Ras͟hn the 18th day of S͟hahrīwar (see Akbarnāma, ii, 344), but it was the 17th Rabīʿu-l-awwal. See Muḥammad Hādī’s preface, p. 2, and Beale, and Jahāngīr’s own statement a few lines above. Possibly Jahāngīr wished to make out that he was born on the 18th Rabīʿu-l-awwal and a Thursday, because he regarded Thursday as a blessed day (mubārak s͟hamba), whilst he regarded Wednesday as peculiarly unlucky, and called it kam, or gam, s͟hamba. ↑
16 Cf. Elliot’s translation, vi, 513, and note 2. ↑
17 The MSS. have “the subsistence lands of people in general (ahālī) and the aimas.” ↑
18 In the text and in Elliot, vi, 515, this is made a separate order, but it is not so in the MSS. If it were, we should have thirteen instead of twelve regulations. This is avoided in text and in Elliot by putting the 8th and 7th regulations into one ordinance. With regard to the regulation about releasing the prisoners, Sir Henry Elliot is somewhat unjust to Jahāngīr in his commentary at p. 515. It was only those who had been long imprisoned whom Jahāngīr released, and his proceedings at Ranthambhor in the 13th year (Tūzuk, p. 256) show that he exercised discrimination in releasing prisoners. The account in Price, p. 10, may also be consulted. There Jahāngīr says he released 7,000 men from Gwalior alone. It may be remembered that most of these were political offenders. Private criminals were for the most part put to death, or mutilated, or fined. There were no regular jails. ↑
19 The above translation of the Institutes should be compared with Sir Henry Elliot’s translation and his commentary: History of India, E. & D., vol. vi, Appendix, p. 493. ↑
20 Erskine’s MS. has īs̤ārī for nis̤ārī, and ak͟htar-i-qabūl instead of k͟hair-i-qabūl. ↑
21 This is Blochmann’s Āṣaf K͟hān No. iii, viz. Mīrzā Jaʿfar Beg. See pp. 368 and 411. ↑
22 The words Āftāb-i-Mamlakat yield, according to the numeration by abjad, the date 1014 A.H. (1605). ↑
23 Page 4 of the text is followed by engravings of the coins of Jahāngīr and the inscriptions thereon, for which the editor, Saiyid Aḥmad, says he is indebted to Mr. Thornhill, the Judge of Meerut. They do not show the lines of poetry. There is an interesting article on the couplets on Jahāngīr’s coins by Mr. C. J. Rodgers, J.A.S.B. for 1888, p. 18. ↑
24 The chronogram is ingenious. The words Ṣāḥib-Qirān-i-S̤ānī yield only 1013 according to abjad, and this is a year too little. But the verse states that Prosperity (or Fortune), Iqbāl, laid his head at the second lord of conjunction’s feet, and the head of Iqbāl, according to the parlance of chronogram-composers, is the first letter of the word, that is, alif, which stands for one (ا) in abjad, and so the date 1014 is made up. Ṣāḥib-Qirān-i-S̤ānī means ‘the second lord of conjunction,’ and is a title generally applied to S͟hāh Jahān; the first lord of conjunction (i.e the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus) was Tīmūr. ↑
25 A great officer under Humāyūn and Akbar. See Āyīn, Blochmann, p. 317. ↑
26 Blochmann, p. 331. He had 1,200 eunuchs. He is generally styled Saʿīd Chag͟hatai. The exact nature of his relationship does not appear. It is not mentioned in his biography in the Maʾās̤ir, ii, 403. Perhaps the word (nisbat) does not here mean affinity by marriage. ↑
27 According to the account in Price, p. 16, and in the Maʾās̤ir, ii, 405, Saʿīd K͟hān gave a bond that if his people were oppressive he would forfeit his head. ↑
28 He does not seem to have had any real power, and he was soon superseded. See Maʾās̤ir, iii, 932. ↑
29 It appears from Erskine and from I.O. MS. that this is a mistake for Yātis͟h-begī, ‘Captain of the Watch,’ and that the name is Amīnu-d-dīn, and not Amīnu-d-daula. See Akbarnāma, iii, 474, etc. ↑
30 S͟harīf K͟hān had been sent by Akbar to recall Jahāngīr to his duty, but instead of coming back he stayed on. He did not accompany Jahāngīr when the latter went off the second time to wait upon his father. Probably he was afraid to do so. Jahāngīr appointed him to Bihar before he left Allahabad to visit his father for the second time. Jahāngīr says S͟harīf waited upon him fifteen days after his accession, and on 4th Rajab. This is another proof, if proof were needed, that the copyists have misread the opening sentence of the Tūzuk and have written has͟htam instead of bistam, for 4th Rajab is fifteen days after 20th Jumādā-l-āk͟hir. The Pāds͟hāhnāma and K͟hāfī K͟hān have 20th, and Price and Price’s original say that S͟harīf arrived sixteen days after the accession. ↑
31 I.O. MS. 181 and Muḥammad Hādī have Sult̤ān Nis̤ār Begam. K͟hāfī K͟hān, i, 245, has Sult̤ān Begam, and says she was born in 994. Price’s Jahāngīr, p. 20, says she was born a year before K͟husrau. She built a tomb for herself in the K͟husrau Bāg͟h, Allahabad, but she is not buried there (see J.R.A.S. for July, 1907, p. 607). She died on 4th S͟haʿbān, 1056 (5th September, 1646), and was at her own request buried in her grandfather’s tomb at Sikandra (Pāds͟hāhnāma, ii, 603–4). ↑
33 The R.A.S. and I.O. MSS. have here Umrā instead of Uzbegs. Umrā here stands, I think, for Umr Singh, the Rānā of Udaipūr, and the meaning is that S͟hīr K͟hān lost his arm in service against the Rānā. ↑
34 The point of the verse seems to be that light is regarded as something spread like a carpet on the ground, and that to place the foot upon it is to insult the sun. Compare Price, p. 33; but Manohar’s verse is wrongly translated there owing to a badly written MS. For Manohar see Akbarnāma, iii, 221, and Badayūnī, iii, 201, also Blochmann, p. 494, and his article in Calcutta Review for April, 1871, also the Dabistān, translation, ii, 53. ↑
35 Probably here āb means both water and the water of the sword. These lines are not in the R.A.S. or I.O. MSS. ↑
36 Text, iḥtiyāt̤ (caution); the MSS. have iʿtiqād (confidence), and I adopt this reading. ↑
37 Blochmann, p. 52. It was a small round seal. Ūzūk or ūzuk is a Tartar word meaning a ring, i.e. a signet-ring. ↑
38 Text, ṣabiyya (daughter), and this led Blochmann (p. 477, note 2) to say that if Sayyid Aḥmad’s text was correct Jahāngīr must have forgotten, in the number of his wives, which of them was the mother of Parwīz. As a fact, Sayyid Aḥmad’s text is not correct, though the R.A.S. MS. agrees with it. The two excellent I.O. MSS. have k͟hwīs͟h (relative), which is here equivalent to cousin. So also has the B.M. MS. used by Erskine. According to Muḥammad Hādī’s preface Parwīz’s mother was the daughter of K͟hwāja Ḥasan, the paternal uncle of Zain K͟hān Koka. His birth was in Muḥarram, 998, or 19th Ābān (November, 1589). See also Akbarnāma, iii, 568. ↑
39 I.e., both were Akbar’s foster-brothers. ↑
40 Price, p. 20, has Karmitty, and says the daughter only lived two months. Karamsī appears twice in the Akbarnāma as the name of a man; see Akbarnāma, ii, 261, and iii, 201. The name may mean ‘composed of kindness.’ The statement in Price is wrong. Bihār Bānū was married to T̤ahmuras̤ s. Prince Dāniyāl in his 20th year (see Tūzuk, M. Hādī’s continuation, p. 400). According to M. Hādī’s preface, Karamsī was the daughter of Rāja Kesho Dās Rāthor, and her daughter Bihār Bānū was born on 23rd S͟hahrīwar, 998 (September, 1590). Kesho Dās Rāṭhor is probably the Kesho Dās Mārū of the Tūzuk. ↑
41 Best known as Jodh Bāī (Blochmann, p. 619). ↑
42 It is extraordinary that Jahāngīr should have put S͟hāh-Jahān’s birth into A.H. 999. The I.O. MSS. support the text, but the R.A.S. MS. has A.H. 1000, which is without doubt right. Cf. Akbarnāma, Bib. Ind., iii, 603. Later on, a great point was made of his having been born in a millennium. The date is 5th January, 1592. ↑
43 Muḥammad Hādī says in his preface, p. 6, that S͟hāh-Jahān’s grandfather Akbar gave him the name of Sultan K͟hurram, ‘Prince Joy,’ because his birth made the world glad. It was noted that the child was born in the first millennium, and also that, like his father, he was born in the same month as the Prophet. ↑
44 Gladwin says they were twins, but this seems a mistake. They were both born about the time of Akbar’s death. ↑
45 In MS. No. 310 of Ethé’s Cat. of I.O. MSS. Saʿid K͟hān is described as giving as his reason for asking for M. G͟hāzī that he had adopted him as his son. Price’s Jahāngīr, p. 21, says the same thing. ↑
46 This should be Jān, and is so in I.O. MS. 181. ↑
47 See Maʾās̤iru-l-umarā, iii, 932. The meaning of the half and half is that the two men were made coadjutors. ↑
48 In R.A.S. and I.O. MSS. the following passage is a verse. See also Mr. Lowe’s translation, p. 16. ↑
49 Wird means ‘daily practice,’ and may be the word intended here. ↑
50 Cf. this with the fuller details in Price, p. 22. Following Blochmann, I take S͟hab-i-jumʿa to mean Thursday and not Friday night. ↑
51 The text has ʿAbdu-l-G͟hanī, but this, as the MSS. show and Blochmann has pointed out, is a mistake for ʿAbdu-n-Nabī. ʿAbdu-n-Nabī was strangled, and the common report is that this was done by Abū-l-faẓl. If this be true it is rather surprising that Jahāngīr does not mention it as an excuse for killing Abū-l-faẓl. Cf. the account of Mīrān Ṣadr Jahān in Price, p. 24. The “Forty Sayings” is a book by Jāmī. See Rieu, Cat. i, 17, and also Dr. Herbelot s.v. Arbain. ↑
52 This should be G͟hiyās̤ Beg. He was father of Nūrjahān. According to the Maʾās̤iru-l-umarā (i, 129), he was commander of 1,000 under Akbar. ↑
53 Topk͟hāna-i-rikāb, lit. stirrup-arsenal. It means light artillery that could accompany royal progresses. See Bernier, and Irvine, A. of M., 134. ↑
54 Text, topchī, which seems properly to mean a gunner, but the number is preposterous. Cf. Blochmann, p. 470, and Price, p. 28. Price’s original has 6,000 topchī mounted on camels, and has pāytak͟ht, i.e. the capital. Erskine has “To have always in readiness in the arsenal arms, and accoutrements for 50,000 matchlock men.” This seems reasonable, for even if Jahāngīr ordered 50,000 musketeers, he would not have required them to be kept in the arsenal. It seems to me that though chī in Turkī is the sign of the agent (nomen agentis) it is occasionally used by Indian writers as a diminutive. Thus topchī here probably means a small gun or a musket, and in Hindustani we are familiar with the word chilamchī, which means a small basin. At p. 301 of the Tūzuk, four lines from foot, we have the word īlchī, which commonly means an ambassador—an agent of a people—used certainly not in this sense, and apparently to mean a number of horses. It is, however, doubtful if īlchī here be the true reading. ↑
55 Text, aknūn (now), which is a mistake for altūn (gold). See Elliot and Dowson, vi, 288. Āl is vermilion in Turkī and altūn gold. Jahāngīr means that he changed the name from āl tamg͟hā to altūn tamg͟hā. ↑
56 Mīrzā Sult̤ān was great-grandson of Sulaimān. ↑
57 Perhaps the reference is to the boy’s own father. He was alive at this time, and Akbar was not. ↑
58 This is the man who afterwards rebelled and made Jahāngīr his prisoner. ↑
59 Text, ulūs-i-Dihli. Blochmann (p. 482 n.) points out that this is a very doubtful term, as Mīrzā ʿAlī came from Badakhshan. On examining three MSS. of the Tūzuk-i-Jahāngīrī I find no word Dihli, but the words īn ulūs, ‘this tribe or family,’ and I think this must be the correct reading, and refers to the Timurides. The same phrase occurs at text, p. 173. Blochmann suggests to read Dūldāy for Dihli, but I think it more probable that the word Dihli should be ʿālī. Mīrzā ʿAlī was styled Akbars͟hāhī, and no doubt this is why Jahāngīr writes īn ulūs or ulūs-i-ʿālī. Mīrzā ʿAlī is often mentioned in the Akbarnāma in connection with the wars in the Deccan, and is generally called Akbars͟hāhī, e.g. at p. 702. For an account of his pathetic death see Blochmann, l.c., the Maʾās̤iru-l-umarā, iii, 357, and the text, p. 163. ↑
60 The MSS. have a different reading, “If a king seize country and climes,” etc. ↑
61 S͟hāhruk͟h was married to Jahāngīr’s half-sister, S͟hakaru-n-nisā. He was a Timurid. ↑
62 The MSS. have Abū-l-walī, and this seems more likely. ↑
63 The MSS. have Bhīnā, and Price’s original seems also to have Bhīnā. Muqarrab did not return for about seven months, as this entry could not have been made till then. See p. 35 of Persian text of Tūzuk. ↑
64 Text, Suk͟hunān-i-past u buland. Cf. Steingass, s.v. past. Words gentle and severe seem meant. ↑
65 See Blochmann, p. 447. He is mentioned by Du Jarric as disputing with the Catholic priests before Jahāngīr (see J.A.S.B. for 1896, p. 77). According to Badayūnī, iii, 98, it was Naqīb’s father, ʿAbdu-l-Lat̤īf, with whom Akbar read (see Akbarnāma, ii, 19). ʿAbdu-l-Lat̤īf and his family arrived in 963 (1556). Erskine understands Jahāngīr’s remark to mean that Naqīb was his (Jahāngīr’s) teacher, but probably Jahāngīr means that it was Naqīb’s father who taught Akbar, or he has confounded the father and son. As Naqīb lived till 1023 (1614), he would probably be too young in 1556 to have been Akbar’s teacher. ↑
66 Mān Singh was the adopted son of Bhagwān Dās, and it would appear from this passage that he was his nephew also. ↑
67 The MSS. have Ḥātim s. Bābūī Manglī, and this is right. See Blochmann, p. 370, n. i, and p. 473. ↑
69 I.O. MSS. have Abū-l-walī. He was an Ūzbeg, and received the title of Bahādur K͟hān. See Ma ās̤iru-l-umarā, i, 400, and Akbarnāma, iii, 820 and 839, where he is called Abū-l-Baqā. The real name seems to be Abūl Be or Bey, and this is how Erskine writes the name. ↑
70 The text seems corrupt. The I.O. MSS. say nothing about Shiraz, but merely that Ḥusain Jāmī was a disciple who had a dervish character (sīrat); nor does the R.A.S. MS. mention Shiraz. ↑
71 That is, descended from the famous Central Asian saint K͟hwāja Aḥrār. ↑
72 Something seems to have fallen out of the text and MSS., for this passage is obscure and not connected with the context. It is clearer in Price’s version, where it is brought in as part of Jahāngīr’s statements about promotions, and where (p. 40) we read as follows:—“I shall now return to the more grateful subject of recording rewards and advancements.... On K͟hwāja Zakariyyā, the son of K͟hwāja Muḥammad Yaḥyā, although in disgrace, I conferred the rank of 500. This I was induced to do on the recommendation of the venerated S͟haik͟h Ḥusain Jāmī. Six months previous to my accession,” etc. Evidently the statement about Zakariyyā’s promotion has been omitted accidentally from the Tūzuk. There is a reference to the S͟haik͟h’s dream in Muḥammad Hādī’s preface to the Tūzuk (p. 15). He says there that it was the saint Bahāʾu-l-ḥaqq who appeared in a dream to Ḥusain Jāmī and told him that Sult̤ān Salīm would soon be king. ↑
73 I.e. of Furj or Furg in Persia. But Furjī is a mistake for Qūrchī (belonging to the body-guard). He was a Mogul. See Blochmann, p. 457. ↑
74 Text has wrongly Pak͟hta. See Blochmann, p. 469. He received the title of Sardār K͟hān. ↑
75 Should be Namakīn. See Blochmann, p. 199. ↑
76 This passage has been translated by Elliot (vi, 289). See also Price (p. 44), where the discussion is fuller. ↑
77 Jahāngīr’s idea is somewhat vaguely expressed, but his meaning seems to be that the ten incarnations do not illustrate any attribute of God, for there have been men who performed similar wonders. The corresponding passage in the text used by Major Price is differently rendered by him, but his version is avowedly a paraphrase, and it appears incorrect in this passage. ↑
78 Literally, “of the How and the Why.” ↑
79 Text, s͟hīr-andām, ‘tiger-shaped,’ which I think means thin in the flank (see Steingass, s.v.). I have taken the translation of the words malāḥat and ṣabāḥat from Elliot. See his note vi, 376, where the two words seem wrongly spelt. ↑
80 Erskine has “Let Sulaimān place his ring on his finger.” ↑
81 Price translates—
“In pleasure of the chase with thee, my soul breathes fresh and clear;
But who receives thy fatal dart, sinks lifeless on his bier.”
82 Perhaps referring to the name which Dāniyāl gave to his gun, and which recoiled on himself, but the MSS. and text have nagīrad, and not bagīrad. ↑
83 The MSS. have S͟hakar-nis̤ār, ‘sugar-sprinkling.’ She lived into S͟hāh-Jahān’s reign. ↑
84 She died unmarried in Jahāngīr’s reign. ↑
85 This must, I think, be the meaning, though according to the wording the statement would seem to be that there is no room for Shias except in Persia. Erskine has “None but Shias are tolerated in Persia, Sunnis in Rūm and Tūrān, and Hindus in Hindustan.” ↑
86 Kings are regarded as shadows of God. ↑
87 The chronogram is one year short, yielding 962 instead of 963. ↑
88 According to the T̤abaqāt, Elliot, v, 366, what the Mīrzā said was “Where are the elephants?” ↑
89 The word for ‘face-guard’ is pīsh-rūy (front-face), and Jahāngīr makes his father pun upon the word, saying, “It has loosed (opened) my front-face.” Cf. Price, p. 54. ↑
90 ‘The helper.’ This is an allusion to Akbar’s patron saint, Muʿīnu-d-dīn Chiṣhtī, whose name he adopted as his battle-cry. ↑
91 The reading in the lithograph seems wrong; the MSS. have az bāzīcha, ‘in jest.’ ↑
92 Abū-l-faẓl is more moderate; he says (Blochmann, p. 116) that Akbar killed 1,019 animals with Sangrām. ↑
93 Blochmann says, of Mashhad, p. 381. ↑
94 The furriery. See Blochmann, pp. 87 n. and 616. Kurk means ‘fur’ in Turki. ↑
95 The word yātish is omitted in text, but occurs in the MSS. ↑
96 Ḥājī Koka was sister of Saʿādat Yār Koka (Akbar-nāma, iii, 656). According to Price this passage refers to a widows’ fund. ↑
97 This was one of Akbar’s regulations (Blochmann p. 142). The amount was ten dams on each muhr of the horse’s value, calculated on an increase of 50 per cent. See also Price, p. 61. ↑
98 This passage is not clear, but the peculiarity to which attention is drawn seems rather the prominent forehead than the oozing fluid. Price (p. 62) has a fuller account of this elephant. ↑
99 See Blochmann, pp. 176, 452, and the very full account of him in the Maʾās̤ir, iii, 285. Amul is an old city south of the Caspian and west of Astrabad. ↑
100 She was Akbar’s first and principal wife, but bore him no children. She long survived him. ↑
101 These are the opening lines of an ode of Ḥāfiz̤. ↑
102 Maʾās̤iru-l-umarā. Yatīm instead of Pīm or Bīm. See Blochmann, p. 470. Erskine has Saīn Bahādur. ↑
104 I think Jahāngīr means that though the K͟hān was an excellent servant in his own line, he was hardly fit for the command of 2,000 or for the title of K͟hān. Cf. his praise of him at p. 71 (Blochmann, p. 498). He was called Pīs͟hrau probably from his going on ahead with the advance camp, as being in charge of the carpets, etc., as well as because of his personal activity. ↑
105 In Price’s Jahāngīr, p. 15, Jahāngīr states that he had imprisoned K͟husrau in the upper part of the royal tower in the castle of Agra. It from this confinement that K͟husrau escaped. ↑
106 Du Jarric says it was in this way that he was allowed to pass the sentinels. Du Jarric gives the date of K͟husrau’s flight as 15th April, 1606 (this would be New Style). By Sunday night is meant Saturday evening. Sunday was Akbar’s birthday. ↑
107 Elliot (vii, 292) makes the Amīru-l-umarā envious of his peers, and Jahāngīr apprehensive lest he should destroy K͟husrau, but he had just told him that nothing he did against K͟husrau would be wrong. Clearly Jahāngīr’s fear was that his favourite should be destroyed by K͟husrau, or perhaps by the Amīr’s treacherous associates. ↑
108 The text has a curious mistake here: instead of ba Kābul it has bakāwal (‘superintendent of the kitchen’) as part of Dūst Muḥammad’s name. Dūst was not bakāwal, but held higher office, and was later put in charge of the fort of Agra and given the title of K͟hwāja Jahān. ↑
110 According to K͟hāfī K͟hān (i, 250) he was put to death, unless the expression “claws of death” is merely rhetorical. The Maʾās̤ir (iii, 334) says he was imprisoned. ↑
111 The above obscure passage is explained in Price, p. 69. ↑
112 Elliot (vi, 293) observes that this is a very involved and obscure passage. ↑
114 The word tiryāq means both opium and antidote. ↑
115 Blochmann, relying on K͟hāfi K͟hān, puts her death in 1011, and the Akbar-nāma (iii, 826) puts it in 1012. The chronogram in the K͟husrau Bāg͟h yields 1012. See J.R.A.S. for July, 1907, p. 604. ↑
116 Where Lord Bellomont died in 1656. See Manucci (Irvine), i, 71. ↑
117 Probably this means the grandsons. At p. 329 it is mentioned that the grandsons had been confined in Gwalior up to the 16th year. ↑
119 Narela is said to be 15½ miles north-west of Delhi. William Finch, in his itinerary, mentions the stage as Nalera, a name that corresponds with Jahāngīr’s. ↑
120 53 miles north of Delhi. ↑
121 Instead of tāza the MSS. have pāra, and the meaning seems to be that he accompanied K͟husrau for some distance. In Price’s Jahāngīr (p. 81) it is said that Niz̤ām received 6,000 rupees. ↑
122 This is an interesting passage, because it is Jahāngīr’s account of his father’s ‘Divine Faith.’ But it is obscure, and copyists seem to have made mistakes. It is explained somewhat by the MS. used by Price (trans., pp. 82, 83), where more details are given than in the text. It is there stated that Aḥmad was Mīr-i-ʿAdl of Jahāngīr before the latter’s accession. ↑
123 The text has dast u sīna (hand and bosom), but the correct words, as is shown in the I.O. MS., No. 181, are s͟hast u s͟habiha or s͟habah, and these refer to the ring or token and the portrait given by Akbar to the followers of the ‘Divine Faith.’ See Blochmann, pp. 166 n. and 203; and Badayūnī, ii, 338. Aḥmad appears to be the Aḥmad Sūfī of Blochmann, pp. 208, 209, and of Badayūnī, ii, 404, and Lowe, p. 418. He was a member of the ‘Divine Faith.’ ↑
124 Text, pūj or pūch, but the manuscript reading lūk is preferable. Erskine’s MS. has lūj, naked. ↑
125 Price (p. 83) has Anand or Anwand. Apparently Alūwa is right; it is a place 18 miles north-west of Umballa. Cf. “India under Aurangzib,” by J. N. Sarkar. ↑
126 Abū-l-Bey, the Abū-l-Baqā of Akbar-nāma, iii, 820. ↑
127 A member of the ‘Divine Faith’ (Blochmann, p. 452, etc.). ↑
128 The text has qatl by mistake for qabl. ↑
129 Biryānī. See Blochmann, p. 60. ↑
130 The Gundvāl of Tiefenthaler, i, 113. Cunningham, in his history of the Sikhs, spells it Goīndwāl. It is on the Beas. ↑
131 The text has singhāsan instead of sukhāsan. Kāmgāar Ḥusainī has sukhpāl. ↑
132 Instead of the basūzānād of the text, the MSS. have bas͟hūrānad, he defiles. In the last line they have jāy instead of tak͟ht. ↑
133 I.e. the place to which to turn in prayer. ↑
134 Elliot (vi, 299) has Jahān, and the word in the MSS. does not look like Jaipāl. ↑
135 This word appears to be a mistake; it is not in the MSS. ↑
136 When the boat stuck, the boatmen swam ashore, and it was probably then that Ḥusain shot at them. See Blochmann, p. 414, n. 2. ↑
137 “With a chain fastened from his left hand to his left foot, according to the law of Chingīz K͟hān” (Gladwin’s Jahāngīr, quoted by Elliot, vi, 507). But apparently what is meant is that K͟husrau was led up from the left side of the emperor. ↑
138 Du Jarric, in his history of the Jesuit Missions, gives some details about the punishment. The bullock and ass were slaughtered on the spot and their skins were sewed on the bodies of the unhappy men. Horns and ears were left on the skins. ↑
139 Perhaps the meaning is that the weather was bad. ↑
140 The proper form seems to be Bhaironwāl, the Bhyrowal of the maps. It is on the right bank of the Bīāh (Beas) on the road from Jalandhar to Amritsar. See Blochmann, p. 414, note. ↑
141 The words are omitted in the text. Erskine read in his MS. gāu jizwan, which I do not understand. The I.O. MSS. and B.M. MS. Or 3276 have gāwān u k͟harān. Ḥusain Beg, whose proper name was Ḥasan, was a brave soldier, and did good service under Akbar. See his biography in Blochmann, p. 454. ↑
142 The fifth Gūrū of the Sikhs and the compiler of the Granth. He was the father of Har Govind. See Sayyid Muhammad Lat̤īf’s history of the Punjāb, p. 253. Arjun’s tomb is in Lahore. ↑
143 But qas͟hqa is a Turkish word. The Hindi phrase seems to be ṭīkā. ↑
144 The cousin of Moses, famous for his wealth; the Korah of the Bible. ↑
147 Akbar-nāma, iii, 748, and Blochmann, p. 546. He was a man of piety and learning, and Jahāngīr means that he restored him to his former quiet life. The arbāb-i-saʿādat, or auspicious persons, were those who offered up prayers for the king’s prosperity and other blessings. ↑
148 Amba was killed later by Nūr-Jahān’s husband, Shīr-Afgan (Tūzuk, pp. 54, 55). ↑
150 These words are not in the MSS., and they seem to have crept into the text by mistake and to be a premature entry of words relating to Hās͟him, etc. The brother of the former ruler (or king) of K͟handesh could hardly be a k͟hānazād. ↑
151 This should be, according to the MSS., “army against the Rānā,” not army of the Deccan. ↑
152 The MSS. have “in the neighbourhood of Lahore.” Parwīz had then charge of Bihar. ↑
153 Text, wrongly, Bahman. Jahāngīr was born on the 21st of S͟hahrīwar. ↑
154 Apparently, had long looked forward to the happy day when Jahāngīr should be weighed as a king. ↑
155 Perhaps the meaning is that he was introduced along with Dāniyāl’s children. ↑
157 This refers to his parentage. ↑
158 In the MSS. this name seems to be Bhīm Mal. Manjholi is written Manjholah in Blochmann, p. 175. ↑
159 ? Nandanpur. These places are in Sindsagār, near Multān. ↑
160 MS. 181 has Bahar, and it has 600 instead of 800 horse. ↑
161 Text, Ūymāq pūrī (?). MS. 181 has būrī, and 305 seems to have the same. Can it mean ‘red cavalry’? As Blochmann has pointed out, 371, n. 2, the word Ūymāq does not always mean the tribe, but was used to denote a superior kind of cavalry. ↑
162 The qamargāh or ring-hunt produced 265 head of game; the rest were shot at other times; the total of the list should be apparently 576. ↑