CHAPTER II.
PROBLEMS OF THE MUTILATED BABUR-NAMA.
Losses from the text of Babur's book are the more disastrous because it
truly embodies his career. For it has the rare distinction of being
contemporary with the events it describes, is boyish in his boyhood,
grows with his growth, matures as he matured. Undulled by retrospect, it
is a fresh and spontaneous recital of things just seen, heard or done.
It has the further rare distinction of shewing a boy who, setting a
future task before him—in his case the revival of Timurid power,—began
to chronicle his adventure in the book which through some 37 years was
his twinned comrade, which by its special distinctions has attracted
readers for nearly a half-millennium, still attracts and still is a
thing apart from autobiographies which look back to recall dead years.
Much circumstance makes for the opinion that Babur left his life-record
complete, perhaps repaired in places and recently supplemented, but
continuous, orderly and lucid; this it is not now, nor has been since it
was translated into Persian in 1589, for it is fissured by _lacunæ_, has
neither Preface nor Epilogue,[5] opens in an oddly abrupt and
incongruous fashion, and consists of a series of fragments so
disconnected as to demand considerable preliminary explanation. Needless
to say, its dwindled condition notwithstanding, it has place amongst
great autobiographies, still revealing its author playing a man's part
in a drama of much historic and personal interest. Its revelation is
however now like a portrait out of drawing, because it has not kept the
record of certain years of his manhood in which he took momentous
decisions,(1) those of 1511-12 (918) in which he accepted
reinforcement—at a great price—from Isma`il the Shi`a Shah of Persia,
and in which, if my reading be correct, he first (1512) broke the Law
against the use of wine,[6] (2) those of 1519-1525 [926-932], in which
his literary occupations with orthodox Law (_see Mubin_) associated with
cognate matters of 932 AH. indicate that his return to obedience had
begun, in which too was taken the decision that worked out for his fifth
expedition across the Indus with its sequel of the conquest of Hind.—The
loss of matter so weighty cannot but destroy the balance of his record
and falsify the drawing of his portrait.
a. _Problem of Titles._
As nothing survives to decide what was Babur's chosen title for his
autobiography, a modern assignment of names to distinguish it from its
various descendants is desirable, particularly so since the revival of
interest in it towards which the Facsimile of its Haidarabad Codex has
contributed.[7]
_Babur-nama_ (History of Babur) is a well-warranted name by which to
distinguish the original Turki text, because long associated with this
and rarely if ever applied to its Persian translation.[8] It is not
comprehensive because not covering supplementary matter of biography
and description but it has use for modern readers of classing
Babur's with other Timuriya and Timurid histories such as the
_Zafar-Humayun-Akbar-namas_.
_Waqi`āt-i-baburi_ (Babur's Acts), being descriptive of the book and in
common use for naming both the Turki and Persian texts, might usefully
be reserved as a title for the latter alone.
Amongst European versions of the book _Memoirs of Baber_ is Erskine's
peculium for the Leyden and Erskine Perso-English translation—_Mémoires
de Baber_ is Pavet de Courteille's title for his French version of the
Bukhara [Persified-Turki] compilation—_Babur-nama in English_ links the
translation these volumes contain with its purely-Turki source.
b. _Problems of the Constituents of the Books._
Intact or mutilated, Babur's material falls naturally into three
territorial divisions, those of the lands of his successive rule,
Farghana (with Samarkand), Kabul and Hindustan. With these are distinct
sub-sections of description of places and of obituaries of kinsmen.
The book might be described as consisting of annals and diary, which
once met within what is now the gap of 1508-19 (914-925). Round this
gap, amongst others, bristle problems of which this change of literary
style is one; some are small and concern the mutilation alone, others
are larger, but all are too intricate for terse statement and all might
be resolved by the help of a second MS. _e.g._ one of the same strain as
Haidar's.
Without fantasy another constituent might be counted in with the three
territorial divisions, namely, the grouped _lacunæ_ which by their
engulfment of text are an untoward factor in an estimate either of Babur
or of his book. They are actually the cardinal difficulty of the book as
it now is; they foreshorten purview of his career and character and
detract from its merits; they lose it perspective and distort its
proportions. That this must be so is clear both from the value and the
preponderating amount of the lost text. It is no exaggeration to say
that while working on what survives, what is lost becomes like a
haunting presence warning that it must be remembered always as an
integral and the dominant part of the book.
The relative proportions of saved and lost text are highly
significant:—Babur's commemorable years are about 47 and 10 months,
_i.e._ from his birth on Feb. 14th 1483 to near his death on Dec. 26th
1530; but the aggregate of surviving text records some 18 years only,
and this not continuously but broken through by numerous gaps. That
these gaps result from loss of pages is frequently shewn by a broken
sentence, an unfinished episode. The fragments—as they truly may be
called—are divided by gaps sometimes seeming to remove a few pages only
(cf. _s.a._ 935 AH.), sometimes losing the record of 6 and _cir._ 18
months, sometimes of 6 and 11 years; besides these actual clefts in the
narrative there are losses of some 12 years from its beginning and some
16 months from its end. Briefly put we now have the record of _cir._ 18
years where that of over 47 could have been.[9]
c. _Causes of the gaps._
Various causes have been surmised to explain the _lacunæ_; on the plea
of long intimacy with Babur's and Haidar's writings, I venture to say
that one and all appear to me the result of accident. This opinion rests
on observed correlations between the surviving and the lost record,
which demand complement—on the testimony of Haidar's extracts, and
firmly on Babur's orderly and persistent bias of mind and on the
prideful character of much of the lost record. Moreover occasions of
risk to Babur's papers are known.
Of these occasions the first was the destruction of his camp near Hisar
in 1512 (918; p. 357) but no information about his papers survives; they
may not have been in his tent but in the fort. The second was a case of
recorded damage to "book and sections" (p. 679) occurring in 1529 (935).
From signs of work done to the Farghana section in Hindustan, the damage
may be understood made good at the later date. To the third exposure to
damage, namely, the attrition of hard travel and unsettled life during
Humayun's 14 years of exile from rule in Hindustan (1441-1555) it is
reasonable to attribute even the whole loss of text. For, assuming—as
may well be done—that Babur left (1530) a complete autobiography, its
volume would be safe so long as Humayun was in power but after the
Timurid exodus (1441) his library would be exposed to the risks detailed
in the admirable chronicles of Gul-badan, Jauhar and Bayazid (_q.v._).
He is known to have annotated his father's book in 1555 (p. 466 n. 1)
just before marching from Kabul to attempt the re-conquest of Hindustan.
His Codex would return to Dihli which he entered in July 1555, and there
would be safe from risk of further mutilation. Its condition in 1555 is
likely to have remained what it was found when `Abdu'r-rahim translated
it into Persian by Akbar's orders (1589) for Abu'l-faẓl's use in the
_Akbar-nama_. That Persian translation with its descendant the _Memoirs
of Baber_, and the purely-Turki Haidarabad Codex with its descendant the
_Babur-nama in English_, contain identical contents and, so doing, carry
the date of the mutilation of Babur's Turki text back through its years
of safety, 1589 to 1555, to the period of Humayun's exile and its
dangers for camel-borne or deserted libraries.
d. _Two misinterpretations of lacunæ._
Not unnaturally the frequent interruptions of narrative caused by
_lacunæ_ have been misinterpreted occasionally, and sometimes
detractory comment has followed on Babur, ranking him below the
accomplished and lettered, steadfast and honest man he was. I select two
examples of this comment neither of which has a casual origin.
The first is from the _B.M. Cat. of Coins of the Shahs of Persia_ p.
xxiv, where after identifying a certain gold coin as shewing vassalage
by Babur to Isma`il _Safawi_, the compiler of the Catalogue notes, "We
can now understand the omission from Babar's 'Memoirs' of the
occurrences between 914 H. and 925 H." Can these words imply other than
that Babur suppressed mention of minting of the coins shewing
acknowledgment of Shi`a suzerainty? Leaving aside the delicate topic of
the detraction the quoted words imply, much negatives the surmise that
the gap is a deliberate "omission" of text:—(1) the duration of the
Shi`a alliance was 19-20 months of 917-918 AH. (p. 355), why omit the
peaceful or prideful and victorious record of some 9-10 years on its
either verge? (2) Babur's Transoxus campaign was an episode in the
struggle between Shaibaq Khan (Shaibani) _Auzbeg_ and Shah
Isma`il—between Sunni and Shi`a; how could "omission" from his book,
always a rare one, hide what multitudes knew already? "Omission" would
have proved a fiasco in another region than Central Asia, because the
Babur-Haidar story of the campaign, vassal-coinage included,[10] has
been brought into English literature by the English translation of the
_Tarikh-i rashidi_. Babur's frank and self-judging habit of mind would,
I think, lead him to write fully of the difficulties which compelled the
hated alliance and certainly he would tell of his own anger at the
conduct of the campaign by Isma`il's Commanders. The alliance was a
tactical mistake; it would have served Babur better to narrate its
failure.
The second misinterpretation, perhaps a mere surmising gloss, is
Erskine's (_Memoirs_ Supp. p. 289) who, in connection with `Alam Khan's
request to Babur for reinforcement in order to oust his nephew Ibrahim,
observes that "Babur probably flattered `Alam Khan with the hope of
succession to the empire of Hindustan." This idea does not fit the
record of either man. Elphinstone was angered by Erskine's remark which,
he wrote (Aug. 26th 1826) "had a bad effect on the narrative by
weakening the implicit confidence in Babur's candour and veracity which
his frank way of writing is so well-calculated to command."
Elphinstone's opinion of Babur is not that of a reader but of a student
of his book; he was also one of Erskine's staunchest helpers in its
production. From Erskine's surmise others have advanced on the
detractor's path saying that Babur used and threw over `Alam Khan
(_q.v._).
e. _Reconstruction._
Amongst the problems mutilation has created an important one is that of
the condition of the beginning of the book (p. 1 to p. 30) with its
plunge into Babur's doings in his 12th year without previous mention of
even his day and place of birth, the names and status of his parents, or
any occurrences of his præ-accession years. Within those years should be
entered the death of Yunas Khan (1487) with its sequent obituary notice,
and the death of [Khwaja `Ubaidu'l-lah] Ahrari (1491). Not only are
these customary entries absent but the very introductions of the two
great men are wanting, probably with the also missing account of their
naming of the babe Babur. That these routine matters are a part of an
autobiography planned as Babur's was, makes for assured opinion that the
record of more than his first decade of life has been lost, perhaps by
the attrition to which its position in the volume exposed it.
Useful reconstruction if merely in tabulated form, might be effected in
a future edition. It would save at least two surprises for readers, one
the oddly abrupt first sentence telling of Babur's age when he became
ruler in Farghana (p. 1), which is a misfit in time and order, another
that of the sudden interruption of `Umar Shaikh's obituary by a fragment
of Yunas Khan's (p. 19) which there hangs on a mere name-peg, whereas
its place according to Babur's elsewhere unbroken practice is directly
following the death. The record of the missing præ-accession years will
have included at the least as follows:—Day of birth and its place—names
and status of parents—naming and the ceremonial observances proper for
Muhammadan children—visits to kinsfolk in Tashkint, and to Samarkand
(æt. 5, p. 35) where he was betrothed—his initiation in school
subjects, in sport, the use of arms—names of teachers—education in the
rules of his Faith (p. 44), appointment to the Andijan Command _etc._,
_etc._
There is now no fit beginning to the book; the present first sentence
and its pendent description of Farghana should be removed to the
position Babur's practice dictates of entering the description of a
territory at once on obtaining it (cf. Samarkand, Kabul, Hindustan). It
might come in on p. 30 at the end of the topic (partly omitted on p. 29
where no ground is given for the manifest anxiety about Babur's safety)
of the disputed succession (Haidar, trs. p. 135) Babur's partisan begs
having the better of Jahangir's (_q.v._), and having testified
obeisance, he became ruler in Farghana; his statement of age (12 years),
comes in naturally and the description of his newly acquired territory
follows according to rule. This removal of text to a later position has
the advantage of allowing the accession to follow and not precede
Babur's father's death.
By the removal there is left to consider the historical matter of pp.
12-13. The first paragraph concerns matter of much earlier date than
`Umar's death in 1494 (p. 13); it may be part of an obituary notice,
perhaps that of Yunas Khan. What follows of the advance of displeased
kinsmen against `Umar Shaikh would fall into place as part of Babur's
record of his boyhood, and lead on to that of his father's death.
The above is a bald sketch of what might be effected in the interests of
the book and to facilitate its pleasant perusal.