Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:17:44.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XIV. The Confusion between Hamīda Bāno Bēgam (Maryam - Makānī), Akbar's Mother, and Hīji Bēgam or Bēga Bēgam, The Senior Widow of Humāyūn: Humāyūn's Tomb

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Vincent A. Smith
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Humāyūn married Hājī, alias Bēga Bēgam, about 1527. Fourteen years later, in 1541, he married Hamīda Bāno Bēgam, who became the mother of Akbar in 1542, and was known by the honorific style of Maryam Makānī, “dwelling with Mary,” that is to say the Virgin Mary, after her death. On the face of it no confusion between the two ladies should be possible. Nevertheless, they have been frequently confounded, and the error can be traced back as early as 1612, only seven years after Akbar's death. The common error is explained by the fact that Akbar treated Hājī Bēgam, the elder lady, as a second mother, so that many people believed him to be her son.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 1917 , pp. 551 - 560
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1917

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 551 note 1 Badāonī, , trs. Lowe, ii, 308.Google Scholar

page 551 note 2 Yādgār Nāsir Mīrzā, son of Bābur's youngest brother Nāsir, seems to be the same person as Yādgār Mīrzā or Beg. Yādgār Nāsir Beg was executed by Humāyūn (H. Beveridge).

page 553 note 1 Mrs. Beveridge's discussion of those two matters has been duly considered. I adopt Jauhar's date for the birth of Akbar. See discussion in Indian Antiquary, 1915.Google Scholar

page 554 note 1 Elliot, & Dowson, , vol. v, pp. 69, 113.Google Scholar

page 554 note 2 According to MrBeveridge, (Akbarnāmah, tr., i, 33 n.)Google Scholar, Akbar conferred the title on his mother during her lifetime.

page 555 note 1 De Laet, , De Imperio Magni Mogolis, sive India Vera; Lugduni Batavorum, Elzevir, 1631; 2nd issue, pp. 165–7.Google Scholar

page 556 note 1 “Ac Zelaldini mater nec regium genus nec dignitatem Cinguiscani, in Zelaldinum transfudit: fuit enim, privati cujusdam tribuni filia. Vocabatur Txoëlii Beygum et anteaquam Emaumo nuberet data fuerat a parentibus Cayacano uxor” (Commentarius, p. 656).Google Scholar The last clause, intimating that Hamīda, before her marriage with Humāyūn, had been given by her parents to one “Cayacanus” (?Kāim Khān), must apparently refer to a betrothal, not to a consummated union. De Laet, owing to his confusion between the two ladies, gives the epithet “Chūlī Bēgam” to the wrong one.

page 557 note 1 The Archæology and Monumental Remains of Delhi; 8vo, Ludhiana and Calcutta, 1876, p. 198.Google Scholar

page 557 note 2 The New Guide to Delhi, 1866, p. 102.Google Scholar

page 557 note 3 Op. cit., pp. 202, 203.

page 558 note 1 Badāonī, , 135.Google Scholar This author alone gives the name of the architect. The references are to Lowe's translation, Calcutta, 1884.

page 558 note 2 Akbarnamah, tr. Beveridge, ii, 512Google Scholar, and note. The fifteenth year, according to the Tabakāt, began on 03 14, 1570Google Scholar = 6th Shawwāl, A.H. 977 (E. & D., v, 334). But the table at p. 246 of the same volume gives the first day as March 10 or 11, equivalent to 2nd Shawwal. The table, based on the Akbarnāmah, is to be preferred.

page 559 note 1 An Oriental Biographical Dictionary, by Beale, T. W., revised and enlarged ed. by Keene, H. G., C.I.E., London, Allen & Co., 1894.Google Scholar It may be useful to note that the late Mr. William Irvine corrected many errors and supplied various omissions in the book for the period A.H. 1100–1200 (about A.D. 1689–1785), in Ind. Ant., vol. xxxiii (1894), pp. 299–304.Google Scholar The Dictionary must be used with caution, for all periods. I have observed many errors.

page 559 note 2 Even Mr. Blochmann made this particular blunder in Āīn, vol. i, p. 455.Google Scholar

page 560 note 1 De Laet confuses Maryam Makānī, the mother, with Maryam Zamānī, the wife of Akbar. “Gynaecea, uti unura Mariam Makany uxoris Achabaris et matris Ziangier” (De Imperio Magni Mogolis, 1631, 2nd issue, p. 42).Google Scholar Lethbridge in his translation duly notes the error (Calc. Review, 1870Google Scholar: reprint, “The Topography of the Mogul Empire as known to the Dutch in 1631”; Calcutta, City Press, 1871, p. 31, note). The mausoleum of Maryam Zamānī (or more accurately, -uz Zamānī) at Sikandarah (Secundra), near Agra, has recently been cleared of accretions and thoroughly repaired (Ann. Rep. A. S. India, 1910–1911, pp. 92–6, pi. xlviii–l).Google Scholar