The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
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 | Scribe. |
| completion. | |
--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+
| | |
1. Waqi`nama-i- | 1121-1709. Date |`Abdu'l-wahhab |
padshahi _alias_ | of colophon of | _q.v._ |
Babur-nama. | earliest known | Taken to be also |
| example. | the author. |
| | |
2. Nazar Bai | Unknown. | Unknown. |
Turkistani's MS. | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
3. F. O. Codex | 1126-1714. | Unknown. |
(Timurpulad's | | |
MS.). | | |
| | |
| | |
4. Kehr's Autograph | 1737. | George Jacob |
Codex. | | Kehr. |
| | |
| | |
5. Name not learned.| 1155-1742. | Unknown. |
| | |
| | |
6. (Mysore) A.S.B. | Unknown. JRAS. | Unknown. |
Codex. | 1900, Nos. vii | |
| and viii. | |
| | |
7. India Office | Cir. 1810. | Unknown. |
Codex (Bib. | | |
Leydeniana). | | |
| | |
8. "The Senkovski | 1824. | J. Senkovski. |
Babur-nama." | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
9. Pet. University | 1839? | Mulla Faizkhanov? |
Codex. | | |
--------------------+-----------------+-------------------+
--------------------+-------------------+-------------+--------------
Names. | Last known | Archetype. | Remarks.
| location. | |
--------------------+-------------------+-------------+--------------
| | |
1. Waqi`nama-i- | Bukhara. | Believed to | _See_
padshahi _alias_ | | be the | Part III.
Babur-nama. | | original |
| | compilation.|
| | |
2. Nazar Bai | In owner's | No. 1, the | Senkovski's
Turkistani's MS. | charge in | colophon of | archetype who
| Petrograd, 1824. | which it | copied its
| | reproduces. | (transferred)
| | | colophon.
| | |
3. F. O. Codex | F.O. Petrograd, | Not stated, | Bought in
(Timurpulad's | where copied in | an indirect | Bukhara,
MS.). | 1742. | copy of | brought to
| | No. 1. | Petro. 1725.
| | |
4. Kehr's Autograph | Pet. Or. School, | No. 3. | _See_
Codex. | 1894. | | Part III.
| London T.O. 1921. | |
| | |
5. Name not learned.| Unknown. | No. 3. | Archetype
| | | of 9.
| | |
6. (Mysore) A.S.B. | Asiatic Society | Unknown. | --
Codex. | of Bengal. | |
| | |
| | |
7. India Office | India Office, | No. 6. | Copied for
Codex (Bib. | 1921. | | Leyden.
Leydeniana). | | |
| | |
8. "The Senkovski | Pet. Asiatic | No. 2. | Bears a copy
Babur-nama." | Museum, 1900. | | of the
| | | colophon of
| | | No. 1.
| | |
9. Pet. University | Pet. Univ. | No. 5 (?). | --
Codex. | Library. | |
--------------------+-------------------+-------------+--------------
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 was accessible to Erskine.
If the _Babur-nama_ owed its perennial interest to its valuable
multifarious matter, the _Memoirs_ could suffice to represent it, but
this it does not; what has kept interest in it alive through some four
centuries is the autobiographic presentment of an arresting personality
its whole manner, style and diction produce. It is characteristic
throughout, from first to last making known the personal quality of its
author. Obviously that quality has the better chance of surviving a
transfer of Babur's words to a foreign tongue when this can be effected
by imitation of them. To effect this was impracticable to Erskine who
did not see any example of the Turki text during the progress of his
translation work and had little acquaintance with Turki. No blame
attaches to his results; they have been the one introduction of Babur's
writings to English readers for almost a century; but it would be as
sensible to expect a potter to shape a vessel for a specific purpose
without a model as a translator of autobiography to shape the new verbal
container for Babur's quality without seeing his own. Erskine was the
pioneer amongst European workers on Baburiana—Leyden's fragment of
unrevised attempt to translate the Bukhara Compilation being a
negligible matter, notwithstanding friendship's deference to it; he had
ready to his hand no such valuable collateral help as he bequeathed to
his successors in the Memoirs volume. To have been able to help in the
renewal of his book by preparing a second edition of it, revised under
the authority of the Haidarabad Codex, would have been to me an act of
literary piety to an old book-friend; I experimented and failed in the
attempt; the wording of the Memoirs would not press back into the Turki
mould. Being what it is, sound in its matter and partly representative
of Babur himself, the all-round safer plan, one doing it the greater
honour, was to leave it unshorn of its redundance and unchanged in its
wording, in the place of worth and dignity it has held so long.
Brought to this point by experiment and failure, the way lay open to
make bee-line over intermediaries back to the fountain-head of
re-discovered Turki text preserved in the Haidarabad Codex. Thus I have
enjoyed an advantage no translator has had since `Abdu'r-rahim in 1589.
Concerning matters of style and diction, I may mention that three
distinct impressions of Babur's personality are set by his own,
Erskine's and de Courteille's words and manner. These divergencies,
while partly due to differing textual bases, may result mainly from the
use by the two Europeans of unsifted, current English and French. Their
portrayal might have been truer, there can be no doubt, if each had
restricted himself to such under-lying component of his mother-tongue as
approximates in linguistic stature to classic Turki. This probability
Erskine could not foresee for, having no access during his work to a
Turki source and no familiarity with Turki, he missed their lessoning.