The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
position of collaboration in it both by giving him premier
place on its title-page and by attributing to him the beginning
the translation. What one gleans of Leyden's character makes an
impression of unassumption that would forbid his acceptance of
the posthumous position given to him, and, as his translation
shews the tyro in Turki, there can be no ground for supposing
he would wish his competence in it over-estimated. He had, as
dates show, nothing to do with the actual work of the _Memoirs_
which was finished before Erskine had seen in 1813 what Leyden
had set down before he died in 1811. As the _Memoirs_ is now a
rare book, I quote from it what Erskine says (Preface, p. ix)
of Leyden's rough translation:—"This acquisition (_i.e_. of
Leyden's trs.) reduced me to rather an awkward dilemma. The two
translations (his own and Leyden's) differed in many important
particulars; but as Dr. Leyden had the advantage of translating
from the original, I resolved to adopt his translation as far
as it went, changing only such expressions in it as seemed
evidently to be inconsistent with the context, or with other
parts of the _Memoirs_, or such as seemed evidently to
originate in the oversights that are unavoidable in an
unfinished work.[23] This labour I had completed with some
difficulty, when Mr. Elphinstone sent me the copy of the
_Memoirs of Baber_ in the original Tūrkī (_i.e._ The
Elphinstone Codex) which he had procured when he went to
Peshawar on his embassy to Kabul. This copy, which he had
supposed to have been sent with Dr. Leyden's manuscripts from
Calcutta, he was now fortunate enough to recover (in his own
library at Poona). The discovery of this valuable manuscript
reduced me, though heartily sick of the task, to the necessity
of commencing my work once more."
Erskine's Preface (pp. x, xi) contains various other references
to Leyden's work which indicate its quality as tentative and
unrevised. It is now in the British Museum Library.
XII
Little need be said here about the _Memoirs of Baber_.[24]
Erskine worked on a basis of considerable earlier acquaintance
with his Persian original, for, as his Preface tells, he had
(after Leyden's death) begun to translate this some years
before he definitely accepted the counsel of Elphinstone and
Malcolm to undertake the _Memoirs_. He finished his translation
in 1813, and by 1816 was able to dedicate his complete volume
to Elphinstone, but publication was delayed till 1826. His was
difficult pioneer-work, and carried through with the drawback
of working on a secondary source. It has done yeoman service,
of which the crowning merit is its introduction of Babur's
autobiography to the Western world.
XIII
Amongst Erskine's literary remains are several bound volumes of
letters from Elphinstone, Malcolm, Leyden, and others of that
distinguished group of Scots who promoted the revival of
Babur's writings. Erskine's grandson, the late Mr. Lestocq
Erskine, placed these, with other papers, at our disposal, and
they are now located where they have been welcomed as
appropriate additions:—Elphinstone's are in the Advocates'
Library, where already (1826) he, through Erskine, had
deposited his own Codex—and with his letters are those of
Malcolm and more occasional correspondents; Leyden's letters
(and various papers) are in the Memorial Cottage maintained in
his birthplace Denholm (Hawick) by the Edinburgh Border
Counties Association; something fitting went to the Bombay
Asiatic Society and a volume of diary to the British Museum.
Leyden's papers will help his fuller biography; Elphinstone's
letters have special value as recording his co-operation with
Erskine by much friendly criticism, remonstrance against delay,
counsels and encouragement. They, moreover, shew the estimate
an accomplished man of modern affairs formed of Babur Padshah's
character and conduct; some have been quoted in Colebrooke's
_Life of Elphinstone_, but there they suffer by detachment from
the rest of his Baburiana letters; bound together as they now
are, and with brief explanatory interpolations, they would make
a welcome item for "Babur Padshah's Book-pile".
XIV
In May 1921 the contents of these volumes were completed,
namely, the _Babur-nama in English_ and its supplements, the
aims of which are to make Babur known in English diction
answering to his _ipsissima verba_, and to be serviceable to
readers and students of his book and of classic Turki.
XV
Of writings based upon or relating to Babur's the following
have appeared:—
Denkwurdigkeiten des Zahir-uddin Muhammad Babar—A. Kaiser
(Leipzig, 1828). This consists of extracts translated from the
Memoirs.
An abridgement of the Memoirs—R. M. Caldecott (London, 1844).
History of India—Baber and Humayun—W. Erskine (Longmans,
1854).
Babar—Rulers of India series—Stanley Lane-Poole (Oxford,
1899).
Tuzuk-i-babari or Waqi`at-i-babari (_i.e._ the Persian
trs.)—Elliot and Dowson's History of India, 1872, vol. iv.
Babur Padshah _Ghazi_—H. Beveridge (Calcutta Review, 1899).
Babur's diamond, was it the Koh-i-nur?—H. Beveridge, Asiatic
Quarterly Review, April, 1899.
Was `Abdu'r-rahim the translator of Babur's Memoirs? (_i.e._
the _Babur-nama_)—H. Beveridge, AQR., July and October, 1900.
An Empire-builder of the 16th century, Babur—Laurence F. L.
Williams (Allahabad, 1918).
Notes on the MSS. of the Turki text (_Babur-nāma_)—A. S.
Beveridge, JRAS. 1900, 1902, 1921, 1905, and Part II 1906,
1907, 1908, p. 52 and p. 828, 1909 p. 452 (_see_ Index, _s.n._
A. S. B. for topics).
[For other articles and notes by H. B. _see_ Index _s.n._]
Part III. The "Bukhara Babur-nama".
This is a singular book and has had a career as singular as its
characteristics, a very comedy of (blameless) errors and mischance. For
it is a compilation of items diverse in origin, diction, and age,
planned to be a record of the Acts of Babur and Humayun, dependent
through its Babur portion on the `Abdu'r-rahim Persian translation for
re-translation, or verbatim quotation, or dove-tailing effected on the
tattered fragments of what had once been Kamran's Codex of the
Babur-nama proper, the whole interspersed by stop-gaps attributable to
Jahangir. These and other specialities notwithstanding, it ranked for
nearly 200 years as a reproduction of Babur's authentic text, as such
was sent abroad, as such was reconstructed and printed in Kasan (1857),
translated in Paris (1871), catalogued for the Petrograd Oriental School
(1894), and for the India Office (1903).[25]
Manifest causes for the confusion of identity are, (1) lack of the
guidance in Bukhara and Petrograd of collation with the true text, (2)
want of information, in the Petrograd of 1700-25, about Babur's career,
coupled with the difficulties of communication with Bukhara, (3) the
misleading feature in the compiled book of its author's retention of the
autobiographic form of his sources, without explanation as to whether he
entered surviving fragments of Kamran's Codex, patchings or extracts
from `Abdu'r-rahim's Persian translation, or quotations of Jahangir's
stop-gaps. Of these three causes for error the first is dominant,
entailing as it does the drawbacks besetting work on an inadequate
basis.
It is necessary to enumerate the items of the Compilation here as they
are arranged in Kehr's autograph Codex, because that codex (still in
London) may not always be accessible,[26] and because the imprint does
not obey its model, but aims at closer agreement of the Bukhara
Compilation with Ilminski's gratefully acknowledged guide—_The Memoirs
of Baber_. Distinction in commenting on the Bukhara and the Kasan
versions is necessary; their discrepancy is a scene in the comedy of
errors.[27][28][29][30]
OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE COMPILATION.
An impelling cause for the production of the Bukhara compilation is
suggested by the date 1709 at which was finished the earliest example
known to me. For in the first decade of the eighteenth century Peter the
Great gave attention to Russian relations with foreign states of Central
Asia and negociated with the Khan of Bukhara for the reception of a
Russian mission.[31] Political aims would be forwarded if envoys were
familiar with Turki; books in that tongue for use in the School of
Oriental Languages would be desired; thus the Compilation may have been
prompted and, as will be shown later, it appears to have been produced,
and not merely copied, in 1709. The Mission's despatch was delayed till
1719;[32] it arrived in Bukhara in 1721; during its stay a member of its
secretariat bought a Compilation MS. noted as finished in 1714 and on a
fly-leaf of it made the following note:—
"_I, Timur-pulad son of Mirza Rajab son of Pay-chin, bought this book
Babur-nama after coming to Bukhara with [the] Russian Florio Beg
Beneveni, envoy of the Padshah ... whose army is numerous as the
stars.... May it be well received! Amen! O Lord of both Worlds!_"
Timur-pulad's hope for a good reception indicates a definite recipient,
perhaps a commissioned purchase. The vendor may have been asked for a
history of Babur; he sold one, but "Babur-nama" is not necessarily a
title, and is not suitable for the Compilation; by conversational
mischance it may have seemed so to the purchaser and thus have initiated
the mistake of confusing the "Bukhara Babur-nama" with the true one.
Thus endorsed, the book in 1725 reached the Foreign Office; there in
1737 it was obtained by George Jacob Kehr, a teacher of Turki, amongst
other languages, in the Oriental School, who copied it with meticulous
care, understanding its meaning imperfectly, in order to produce a Latin
version of it. His Latin rendering was a fiasco, but his reproduction of
the Arabic forms of his archetype was so obedient that on its sole basis
Ilminski edited the Kasan Imprint (1857). A collateral copy of the
Timur-pulad Codex was made in 1742 (as has been said).
In 1824 Klaproth (who in 1810 had made a less valuable extract perhaps
from Kehr's Codex) copied from the Timur-pulad MS. its purchaser's 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