The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur). Emperor of Hindustan Babur
note, the Auzbeg?(?) endorsement as to the transfer of the “Kamran-docket” and Babur’s letter to Kamran (Mémoires relatifs à l’Asie Paris).
In 1857 Ilminski, working in Kasan, produced his imprint, which became de Courteille’s source for Les Mémoires de Baber in 1871. No worker in the above series shews doubt about accepting the Compilation as containing Babur’s authentic text. Ilminski was in the difficult position of not having entire reliance on Kehr’s transcription, a natural apprehension in face of the quality of the Latin version, his doubts sum up into his words that a reliable text could not be made from his source (Kehr’s MS.), but that a Turki reading-book could—and was. As has been said, he did not obey the dual plan of the Compilation Kehr’s transcript reveals, this, perhaps, because of the misnomer Babur-nama under which Timur-pulad’s Codex had come to Petrograd; this, certainly, because he thought a better history of Babur could be produced by following Erskine than by obeying Kehr—a series of errors following the verbal mischance of 1725. Ilminski’s transformation of the items of his source had the ill result of misleading Pavet de Courteille to over-estimate his Turki source at the expense of Erskine’s Persian one which, as has been said, was Ilminski’s guide—another scene in the comedy. A mischance hampering the French work was its falling to be done at a time when, in Paris 1871, there can have been no opportunity available for learning the contents of Ilminski’s Russian Preface or for quiet research and the examination of collateral aids from abroad.33
The Author of the Compilation.
The Haidarabad Codex having destroyed acquiescence in the phantasmal view of the Bukhara book, the question may be considered, who was its author?
This question a convergence of details about the Turki MSS. reputed to contain the Babur-nama, now allows me to answer with some semblance of truth. Those details have thrown new light upon a colophon which I received in 1900 from Mr. C. Salemann with other particulars concerning the “Senkovski Babur-nama,” this being an extract from the Compilation; its archetype reached Petrograd from Bukhara a century after Kehr’s [viz. the Timur-pulad Codex]; it can be taken as a direct copy of the Mulla’s original because it bears his colophon.34 In 1900 I accepted it as merely that of a scribe who had copied Senkovski’s archetype, but in 1921 reviewing the colophon for this Preface, it seems to me to be that of the original autograph MS. of the Compilation and to tell its author’s name, his title for his book, and the year (1709) in which he completed it.
Table of Bukhara reputed-Babur-nama MSS. (Waqi‘nama-i-padshahi?).
| Names. | Date of completion. | Scribe. | Last known location. | Archetype. | Remarks. |
| 1. Waqi‘nama-i-padshahi _alias_ Babur-nama. | 1121–1709. Date of colophon of earliest known example. | ‘Ābdu’l-wahhab _q.v._ Taken to be also the author. | Bukhara. | Believed to be the original compilation. | _See_ Part III. |
| 2. Nazar Bai Turkistani’s MS. | Unknown. | Unknown. | In owner’s charge in Petrograd, 1824. | No. 1, the colophon of which it reproduces. | Senkovski’s archetype who copied its (transferred) colophon. |
| 3. F. O. Codex (Timurpulad’s MS.). | 1126–1714. | Unknown. | F.O. Petrograd, where copied in 1742. | Not stated, an indirect copy of No. 1. | Bought in Bukhara, brought to Petro. 1725. |
| 4. Kehr’s Autograph | 1737. | George Jacob | Pet. Or. School, 1894. London T.O. 1921. | No. 3. | _See_ Part III. |
| 5. Name not learned. | 1155–1742. | Unknown. | Unknown. | No. 3. | Archetype of 9. |
| 6. (Mysore) A.S.B. Codex. | Unknown. JRAS. 1900, Nos. vii and viii. | Unknown. | Asiatic Society of Bengal. | Unknown. | — |
| 7. India Office Codex (Bib. Leydeniana). | Cir. 1810. | Unknown. | India Office, 1921. | No. 6. | Copied for Leyden. |
| “The Senkovski Babur-nama.” | 1824. | J. Senkovski. | Pet. Asiatic Museum, 1900. | No. 2. | Bears a copy of the colophon of No. 1. |
| 9. Pet. University Codex. | 1839? | Mulla Faizkhanov? | Pet. Univ. Library. | No. 5 (?). | — |
Senkovski brought it over from his archetype; Mr. Salemann sent it to me in its original Turki form. (JRAS. 1900, p. 474). Senkovski’s own colophon is as follows:—
“J’ai achevé cette copie le 4 Mai, 1824, à St. Petersburg; elle a éte faite d’àpres un exemplaire appartenant à Nazar Bai Turkistani, négociant Boukhari, qui etait venu cette année à St. Petersburg. J. Senkovski.”
The colophon Senkovski copied from his archetype is to the following purport:—
“Known and entitled Waqi‘nama-i-padshahi (Record of Royal Acts), [this] autograph and composition (bayad u navisht) of Mulla ‘Abdu’l-wahhāb the Teacher, of Ghaj-davan in Bukhara—God pardon his mistakes and the weakness of his endeavour!—was finished on Monday, Rajab 5, 1121 (Aug. 31st, 1709).—Thank God!”
It will be observed that the title Waqi‘nama-i-padshahi suits the plan of dual histories (of Babur and Humayun) better than does the “Babur-nama” of Timur-pulad’s note, that the colophon does not claim for the Mulla to have copied the elder book (1494–1530) but to have written down and composed one under a differing title suiting its varied contents; that the Mulla’s deprecation and thanks tone better with perplexing work, such as his was, than with the steadfast patience of a good scribe; and that it exonerates the Mulla from suspicion of having caused his compilation to be accepted as Babur’s authentic text. Taken with its circumstanding matters, it may be the dénoument of the play.
Chapter IV.
THE LEYDEN AND ERSKINE MEMOIRS OF BABER.
The fame and long literary services of the Memoirs of Baber compel me to explain why these volumes of mine contain a verbally new English translation of the Babur-nama instead of a second edition of the Memoirs. My explanation is the simple one of textual values, of the advantage a primary source has over its derivative, Babur’s original text over its Persian translation which alone