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
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.