The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
place, and beyond (_pesh_) the gateway a square station,[2859] one side
of which should be the garden-wall and the other three filled with
cells; that running-water should pass through the middle of it, so that
the destitute and poor people who might gather there should eat their
food in those cells, sheltered from the hardship of snow and rain.[2860]
FOOTNOTES
[1] From Atkinson's _Sketches in Afghanistan_ (I.O. Lib. &
B.M.).
[2] _See_ p. 710 (where for "Daniels" read Atkinson).
[3] _See_ Gul-badan Begim's _Humayun-nama_ Index III, _in
loco_.
[4] Cf. Cap. II, PROBLEMS OF THE MUTILATED BABUR-NAMA and
_Tarīkh-i-rashīdi_, trs. p. 174.
[5] The suggestion, implied by my use of this word, that Babur
may have definitely closed his autobiography (as Timur did
under other circumstances) is due to the existence of a
compelling cause _viz._ that he would be expectant of death as
the price of Humayun's restored life (p. 701).
[6] Cf. p. 83 and n. and Add. Note, P. 83 for further
emendation of a contradiction effected by some malign
influence in the note (p. 83) between parts of that note, and
between it and Babur's account of his not-drinking in Herat.
[7] Teufel held its title to be _waqi`_ (this I adopted in
1908), but it has no definite support and in numerous
instances of its occurrence to describe the acts or doings of
Babur, it could be read as a common noun.
[8] It stands on the reverse of the frontal page of the
Haidarabad Codex; it is Timur-pulad's name for the Codex he
purchased in Bukhara, and it is thence brought on by Kehr
(with Ilminski), and Klaproth (Cap. III); it is used by Khwafi
Khan (d. _cir._ 1732), _etc._
[9] That Babur left a complete record much indicates beyond
his own persistence and literary bias, _e.g._ cross-reference
with and needed complements from what is lost; mention by
other writers of Babur's information, notably by Haidar.
[10] App. H, xxx.
[11] p. 446, n. 6. Babur's order for the cairn would fit into
the lost record of the first month of the year (p. 445).
[12] Parts of the Babur-nama sent to Babur's sons are not
included here.
[13] The standard of comparison is the 382 fols. of the
Haidarabad Codex.
[14] This MS. is not to be confused with one Erskine
misunderstood Humayun to have copied (_Memoirs_, p. 303 and
JRAS. 1900, p. 443).
[15] For precise limits of the original annotation _see_ p.
446 n.—For details about the E. Codex _see_ JRAS. 1907, art.
_The Elph. Codex_, and for the colophon AQR. 1900, July, Oct.
and JRAS. 1905, pp. 752, 761.
[16] _See_ Index _s.n._ and III _ante_ and JRAS. 1900-3-5-6-7.
[17] Here speaks the man reared in touch with European
classics; (pure) Turki though it uses no relatives (Radloff)
is lucid. Cf. Cap. IV The Memoirs of Babur.
[18] For analysis of a retranslated passage _see_ JRAS. 1908,
p. 85.
[19] _Tuzuk-i-jahangiri_, Rogers & Beveridge's trs. i, 110;
JRAS. 1900, p. 756, for the Persian passage, 1908, p. 76 for
the "Fragments", 1900, p. 476 for Ilminski's Preface (a second
translation is accessible at the B.M. and I.O. Library and
R.A.S.), _Memoirs_ Preface, p. ix, Index _s.nn._ de
Courteille, Teufel, Bukhara MSS. and Part iii _eo cap._
[20] For Shah-i-jahan's interest in Timur _see_ sign given in
a copy of his note published in my translation volume of
Gul-badan Begim's _Humayun-nama_, p. xiii.
[21] JRAS. 1900 p. 466, 1902 p. 655, 1905 art. _s.n._, 1908
pp. 78, 98; Index _in loco s.n._
[22] Cf. JRAS. 1900, Nos. VI, VII, VIII.
[23] Ilminski's difficulties are foreshadowed here by the same
confusion of identity between the _Babur-nama_ proper and the
Bukhara compilation (Preface, Part iii, p. li).
[24] Cf. Erskine's Preface _passim_, and _in loco_ item XI,
cap. iv. _The Memoirs of Baber_, and Index _s.n._
[25] The last blow was given to the phantasmal reputation of
the book by the authoritative Haidarabad Codex which now can
be seen in facsimile in many Libraries.
[26] But for present difficulties of intercourse with
Petrograd, I would have re-examined with Kehr's the collateral
Codex of 1742 (copied in 1839 and now owned by the Petrograd
University). It might be useful; as Kehr's volume has lost
pages and may be disarranged here and there.
The list of Kehr's items is as follows:—
1 (_not in the Imprint_). A letter from Babur to Kamran the
date of which is fixed as 1527 by its committing Ibrahim
_Ludi's_ son to Kamran's charge (p. 544). It is heard of again
in the Bukhara Compilation, is lost from Kehr's Codex, and
preserved from his archetype by Klaproth who translated it.
Being thus found in Bukhara in the first decade of the
eighteenth century (our earliest knowledge of the Compilation
is 1709), the inference is allowed that it went to Bukhara as
loot from the defeated Kamran's camp and that an endorsement
its companion Babur-nama (proper) bears was made by the Auzbeg
of two victors over Kamran, both of 1550, both in
Tramontana.(1)
2 (_not in Imp._). Timur-pulad's memo. about the purchase of
his Codex in cir. 1521 (_eo cap. post_).
3 (_Imp. 1_). Compiler's Preface of Praise (JRAS. 1900, p.
474).
4 (_Imp. 2_). Babur's Acts in Farghana, in diction such as to
seem a re-translation of the Persian translation of 1589. How
much of Kamran's MS. was serviceable is not easy to decide,
because the Turki fettering of `Abdu'r-rahim's Persian lends
itself admirably to re-translation.(2)
5 (_Imp. 3_). The "Rescue-passage" (App. D) attributable to
Jahangir.
6 (_Imp. 4_). Babur's Acts in Kabul, seeming (like No. 4) a
re-translation or patching of tattered pages. There are also
passages taken verbatim from the Persian.
7 (_Imp. omits_). A short length of Babur's Hindustan Section,
carefully shewn damaged by dots and dashes.
8 (_Imp. 5_). Within 7, the spurious passage of App. L and
also scattered passages about a feast, perhaps part of 7.
9 (_Imp. separates off at end of vol._). Translated passage
from the _Akbar-nāma_, attributable to Jahangir, briefly
telling of Kanwa (1527), Babur's latter years (both changed to
first person), death and court.(3)
[Babur's history has been thus brought to an end, incomplete
in the balance needed of 7. In Kehr's volume a few pages are
left blank except for what shews a Russian librarian's opinion
of the plan of the book, "Here end the writings of Shah
Babur."]
10 (_Imp. omits_). Preface to the history of Humayun,
beginning at the Creation and descending by giant strides
through notices of Khans and Sultans to "Babur Mirza who was
the father of Humayun Padshah". Of Babur what further is said
connects with the battle of Ghaj-davan (918-1512 _q.v._). It
is ill-informed, laying blame on him as if he and not Najm
Sani had commanded—speaks of his preference for the counsel of
young men and of the numbers of combatants. It is noticeable
for more than its inadequacy however; its selection of the
Ghaj-davan episode from all others in Babur's career supports
circumstantially what is dealt with later, the Ghaj-davani
authorship of the Compilation.
11 (_Imp. omits_). Under a heading "Humayun Padshah" is a
fragment about (his? Accession) Feast, whether broken off by
loss of his pages or of those of his archetype examination of
the P. Univ. Codex may show.
12 (_Imp. 6_). An excellent copy of Babur's Hindustan Section,
perhaps obtained from the Ahrari house. [This Ilminski places
(I think) where Kehr has No. 7.] From its position and from
its bearing a scribe's date of completion (which Kehr brings
over), _viz._ _Tamt shud 1126_ (Finished 1714), the compiler
may have taken it for Humayun's, perhaps for the account of
his reconquest of Hind in 1555.
[The remaining entries in Kehr's volume are a quatrain which
may make jesting reference to his finished task, a librarian's
Russian entry of the number of pages (831), and the words
_Etablissement Orientale, Fr. v. Adelung_, 1825 (the Director
of the School from 1793).(4)]
[27] That Babur-nama of the "Kamran-docket" is the mutilated
and tattered basis, allowed by circumstance, of the compiled
history of Babur, filled out and mended by the help of the
Persian translation of 1589. Cf. Kehr's Latin Trs. fly-leaf
entry; Klaproth _s.n._; A.N. trs. H.B., p. 260; JRAS. 1908,
1909, on the "Kamran-docket" where are defects needing
Klaproth's second article (1824).
[28] For an analysis of an illustrative passage _see_ JRAS.
1906; for facilities of re-translation _see_ _eo cap._ p.
xviii, where Erskine is quoted.
[29] _See_ A.N. trans., p. 260; Prefaces of Ilminski and de
Courteille; ZDMG. xxxvii, Teufel's art.; JRAS. 1906.
[30] For particulars about Kehr's Codex see Smirnov's
Catalogue of the School Library and JRAS. 1900, 1906. Like
others who have made statements resting on the mistaken
identity of the Bukhara Compilation, many of mine are now
given to the winds.
[31] _See_ Gregorief's "Russian policy regarding Central
Asia", quoted in Schuyler's Turkistan, App. IV.
[32] The Mission was well received, started to return to
Petrograd, was attacked by Turkmans, went back to Bukhara, and
there stayed until it could attempt the devious route which
brought it to the capital in 1725.
[33] One might say jestingly that the spirit in the book had
rebelled since 1725 against enforced and changing masquerade
as a phantasm of two other books!
[34] Neither Ilminski nor Smirnov mentions another
"Babur-nama" Codex than Kehr's.
[35] A Correspondent combatting my objection to publishing a
second edition of the _Memoirs_, backed his favouring opinion
by reference to `Umar Khayyam and Fitzgerald. Obviously no
analogy exists; Erskine's redundance is not the flower of a
deft alchemy, but is the prosaic consequence of a secondary
source.
[36] The manuscripts relied on for revising the first section
of the Memoirs, (_i.e._ 899 to 908 AH.-1494 to 1502 AD.) are
the Elphinstone and the Ḥaidarābād Codices. To variants from
them occurring in Dr. Kehr's own transcript no authority can
be allowed because throughout this section, his text appears
to be a compilation and in parts a retranslation from one or
other of the two Persian translations (_Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī_) of
the _Bābur-nāma_. Moreover Dr. Ilminsky's imprint of Kehr's
text has the further defect in authority that it was helped
out from the Memoirs, itself not a direct issue from the Turkī
original.
Information about the manuscripts of the _Bābur-nāma_ can be
found in the JRAS for 1900, 1902, 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908.
The foliation marked in the margin of this book is that of the
Ḥaidarābād Codex and of its facsimile, published in 1905 by
the Gibb Memorial Trust.
[37] Bābur, born on Friday, Feb. 14th. 1483 (Muḥarram 6, 888
AH.), succeeded his father, `Umar Shaikh who died on June 8th.
1494 (Ramẓān 4, 899 AH.).
[38] _pād-shāh_, protecting lord, supreme. It would be an
anachronism to translate _pādshāh_ by King or Emperor,
previous to 913 AH. (1507 AD.) because until that date it was
not part of the style of any Tīmūrid, even ruling members of
the house being styled Mīrzā. Up to 1507 therefore Bābur's