The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
Bābur's cessation of effort at 504 capricious or enforced by the
exhaustion of possible changes? Is the arithmetical statement 9 × 8 × 7
= 504 the formula of the practicable permutations?
(2) To improvise verse having a given rhyme and topic must have demanded
quick wits and much practice. Bābur gives at least one example of it (f.
252_b_) but Jahāngīr gives a fuller and more interesting one, not only
because a _rubā`ī_ of Bābur's was the model but from the circumstances
of the game:[2841]—It was in 1024 AH. (1615 AD.) that a letter reached
him from Māwarā'u'n-nahr written by Khwāja Hāshim _Naqsh-bandī_ [who by
the story is shown to have been of Aḥrārī's line], and recounting the
long devotion of his family to Jahāngīr's ancestors. He sent gifts and
enclosed in his letter a copy of one of Bābur's quatrains which he said
Ḥaẓrat Firdaus-makānī had written for Ḥaẓrat Khwājagī (Aḥrārī's eldest
son; f. 36_b_, p. 62 n. 2). Jahāngīr quotes a final hemistich only,
"_Khwājagīra mānda'īm, Khwājagīrā banda'īm_" and thereafter made an
impromptu verse upon the one sent to him.
A curious thing is that the line he quotes is not part of the quatrain
he answered, but belongs to another not appropriate for a message
between _darwesh_ and _pādshāh_, though likely to have been sent by
Bābur to Khwājagī. I will quote both because the matter will come up
again for who works on the Hindūstān poems.[2842]
(1) The quatrain from the _Hindūstān Poems_ is:—
_Dar hawā'ī nafs gumrah `umr ẓāi` karda'īm_ [_kanda'īm_?];
_Pesh ahl-i-allāh az af`āl-i-khūd sharmanda'īm;
Yak naẕr bā mukhlaṣān-i-khasta-dil farmā ki mā
Khwājagīrā mānda'īm u Khwājagīrā banda'īm._
(2) That from the _Akbar-nāma_ is:—
_Darweshānrā agarcha nah as khweshānīm,
Lek az dil u jān mu`taqid eshānīm;
Dūr ast magū`ī shāhī az darweshī,
Shāhīm walī banda-i-darweshānīm._
The greater suitability of the second is seen from Jahāngīr's answering
impromptu for which by sense and rhyme it sets the model; the meaning,
however, of the fourth line in each may be identical, namely, "I remain
the ruler but am the servant of the _darwesh_." Jahāngīr's impromptu is
as follows:—
_Āī ānki marā mihr-i-tū besh az besh ast,
Az daulat yād-i-būdat āī darwesh ast;
Chandānki'z muẕẖ dahāt dilam shād shavad
Shadīm az ānki laṯif az ḥadd besh ast._
He then called on those who had a turn for verse to "speak one" _i.e._
to improvise on his own; it was done as follows:—
_Dārīm agarcha shaghal-i-shāhī dar pesh,
Har laḥẕa kunīm yād-i-darweshān besh;
Gar shād shavad'z mā dil-i-yak darwesh,
Ānra shumarīm ḥaṣil-i-shāhī khwesh._
R.—CHANDĪRĪ AND GŪĀLĪĀR.
The courtesy of the Government of India enables me to reproduce from the
_Archæological Survey Reports_ of 1871, Sir Alexander Cunningham's plans
of Chandīrī and Gūālīār, which illustrate Bābur's narrative on f. 333,
p. 592, and f. 340, p. 607.
S.—CONCERNING THE BĀBUR-NĀMA DATING OF 935 AH.
The dating of the diary of 935 AH. (f. 339 _et seq._) is several times
in opposition to what may be distinguished as the "book-rule" that the
12 lunar months of the Ḥijra year alternate in length between 30 and 29
days (intercalary years excepted), and that Muḥarram starts the
alternation with 30 days. An early book stating the rule is Gladwin's
_Bengal Revenue Accounts_; a recent one, Ranking's ed. of Platts'
_Persian Grammar_.
As to what day of the week was the initial day of some of the months in
935 AH. Bābur's days differ from Wüstenfeld's who gives the full list of
twelve, and from Cunningham's single one of Muḥarram 1st.
It seems worth while to draw attention to the flexibility, within
limits, of Bābur's dating, [not with the object of adversely criticizing
a rigid and convenient rule for common use, but as supplementary to that
rule from a somewhat special source], because he was careful and
observant, his dating was contemporary, his record, as being _de die in
diem_, provides a check of consecutive narrative on his dates, which,
moreover, are all held together by the external fixtures of Feasts and
by the marked recurrence of Fridays observed. Few such writings as the
Bābur-nāma diaries appear to be available for showing variation within a
year's limit.
In 935 AH. Bābur enters few full dates, _i.e._ days of the week and
month. Often he gives only the day of the week, the safest, however, in
a diary. He is precise in saying at what time of the night or the day an
action was done; this is useful not only as helping to get over
difficulties caused by minor losses of text, but in the more general
matter of the transference of a Ḥijra night-and-day which begins after
sunset, to its Julian equivalent, of a day-and-night which begins at 12
a.m. This sometimes difficult transference affords a probable
explanation of a good number of the discrepant dates found in
Oriental-Occidental books.
Two matters of difference between the Bābur-nāma dating and that of some
European calendars are as follows:—
_a. Discrepancy as to the day of the week on which Muḥ 935_ AH. _began._
This discrepancy is not a trivial matter when a year's diary is
concerned. The record of Muḥ. 1st and 2nd is missing from the
_Bābur-nāma_; Friday the 3rd day of Muḥarram is the first day specified;
the 1st was a Wednesday therefore. Erskine accepted this day; Cunningham
and Wüstenfeld give Tuesday. On three grounds Wednesday seems right—at
any rate at that period and place:—(1) The second Friday in Muḥarram was
`Āshūr, the 10th (f. 240); (2) Wednesday is in serial order if reckoning
be made from the last surviving date of 934 AH. with due allowance of an
intercalary day to Ẕū'l-ḥijja (Gladwin), _i.e._ from Thursday Rajab 12th
(April 2nd 1528 AD. f. 339, p. 602); (3) Wednesday is supported by the
daily record of far into the year.
_b. Variation in the length of the months of 935_ AH.
There is singular variation between the _Bābur-nāma_ and Wüstenfeld's
_Tables_, both as to the day of the week on which months began, and as
to the length of some months. This variation is shown in the following
table, where asterisks mark agreement as to the days of the week, and
the capital letters, quoted from W.'s _Tables_, denote A, Sunday;
B, Tuesday, _etc._ (the bracketed names being of my entry).
_Bābur-nāma._ _Wüstenfeld_
Days. Days.
Muḥarram 29 Wednesday 30 C (Tuesday)
Ṣafar 30 Thursday* 29 E (Thursday)*
Rabī` I. 30 Saturday 30 F (Friday)
" II. 29 Monday 29 A (Sunday)
Jumadā I. 30 Tuesday 30 B (Monday)
" II. 29 Thursday 29 D (Wednesday)
Rajab 29 Friday 30 E (Thursday)
Sha`bān 30 Saturday* 29 G (Saturday)*
Ramẓān 29 Monday 30 A (Sunday)
Shawwal 30 Tuesday* 29 C (Tuesday)*
Ẕū'l-qa`da 29 Thursday 30 D (Wednesday)
Ẕū'l-ḥijja 30 Friday* 29 T (Friday)*
The table shows that notwithstanding the discrepancy discussed in
section _a_, of Bābur's making 935 AH. begin on a Wednesday, and
Wüstenfeld on a Tuesday, the two authorities agree as to the initial
week-day of four months out of twelve, _viz._ Ṣafar, Sha`bān, Shawwal
and Ẕū'l-ḥijja.
Again:—In eight of the months the _Bābur-nāma_ reverses the "book-rule"
of alternative Muḥarram 30 days, Ṣafar 29 days _et seq._ by giving
Muḥarram 29, Ṣafar 30. (This is seen readily by following the initial
days of the week.) Again:—these eight months are in pairs having
respectively 29 and 30 days, and the year's total is 364.—Four months
follow the fixed rule, _i.e._ as though the year had begun Muḥ. 30 days,
Ṣafar 29 days—namely, the two months of Rabī` and the two of
Jumāda.—Ramẓān to which under "book-rule" 30 days are due, had 29 days,
because, as Bābur records, the Moon was seen on the 29th.—In the other
three instances of the reversed 30 and 29, one thing is common, _viz._
Muḥarram, Rajab, Ẕū'l-qa`da (as also Ẕū'l-ḥijja) are "honoured"
months.—It would be interesting if some expert in this Musalmān matter
would give the reasons dictating the changes from rule noted above as
occurring in 935 AH.
_c. Varia._
(1) On f. 367 Saturday is entered as the 1st day of Sha`bān and
Wednesday as the 4th, but on f. 368_b_ stands Wednesday 5th, as suits
the serial dating. If the mistake be not a mere slip, it may be due to
confusion of hours, the ceremony chronicled being accomplished on the
eve of the 5th, Anglicé, after sunset on the 4th.
(2) A fragment only survives of the record of Ẕū'l-ḥijja 935 AH. It
contains a date, Thursday 7th, and mentions a Feast which will be that
of the _`Īdu'l-kabīr_ on the 10th (Sunday). Working on from this to the
first-mentioned day of 936 AH. _viz._ Tuesday, Muḥarram 3rd, the month
(which is the second of a pair having 29 and 30 days) is seen to have 30
days and so to fit on to 936 AH. The series is Sunday 10th, 17th, 24th
(Sat. 30th) Sunday 1st, Tuesday 3rd.
Two clerical errors of mine in dates connecting with this Appendix are
corrected here:—(1) On p. 614 n. 5, for Oct. 2nd read Oct. 3rd; (2) on
p. 619 penultimate line of the text, for Nov. 28th read Nov. 8th.
T.—ON L:KNŪ (LAKHNAU) AND L:KNŪR (LAKHNŪR, NOW SHĀHĀBĀD IN RĀMPŪR).
One or other of the above-mentioned names occurs eight times in the
_Bābur-nāma_ (_s.a._ 932, 934, 935 AH.), some instances being shown by
their context to represent Lakhnau in Oudh, others inferentially and by
the verbal agreement of the Ḥaidarābād Codex and Kehr's Codex to stand
for Lakhnūr (now Shāhābād in Rāmpūr). It is necessary to reconsider the
identification of those not decided by their context, both because there
is so much variation in the copies of the `Abdu'r-raḥīm Persian
translation that they give no verbal help, and because Mr. Erskine and
M. de Courteille are in agreement about them and took the whole eight to
represent Lakhnau. This they did on different grounds, but in each case
their agreement has behind it a defective textual basis.—Mr. Erskine, as
is well known, translated the `Abdu'r-raḥīm Persian text without access
to the original Turkī but, if he had had the Elphinstone Codex when
translating, it would have given him no help because all the eight
instances occur on folios not preserved by that codex. His only sources
were not-first-rate Persian MSS. in which he found casual variation from
terminal _nū_ to _nūr_, which latter form may have been read by him as
_nūū_ (whence perhaps the old Anglo-Indian transliteration he uses,
Luknow).[2843]—M. de Courteille's position is different; his uniform
_Lakhnau_ obeyed the same uniformity in his source the Kāsān Imprint,
and would appear to him the more assured for the concurrence of the
_Memoirs_. His textual basis, however, for these words is Dr. Ilminsky's
and not Kehr's. No doubt the uniform _Lakhnū_ of the Kāsān Imprint is
the result of Dr. Ilminsky's uncertainty as to the accuracy of his
single Turkī archetype [Kehr's MS.], and also of his acceptance of Mr.
Erskine's uniform _Luknow_.[2844]—Since the Ḥaidarābād Codex became
available and its collation with Kehr's Codex has been made, a better
basis for distinguishing between the L:knū and L:knūr of the Persian
MSS. has been obtained.[2845] The results of the collation are entered
in the following table, together with what is found in the Kāsān Imprint
and the _Memoirs_. [N.B. The two sets of bracketed instances refer each
to one place; the asterisks show where Ilminsky varies from Kehr.]