IT is not generally known to English students of the (so-called) Mughal period of Indian history that Gul-badan Begam wrote a book. It was not known to Mr. Erskine, or he would have given fuller and more accurate accounts of the families of Bābar and Humāyūn. It escaped even Professor Blochmann's wider opportunities of acquaintance with Persian MSS. Until the begam's Humāyūn-nāma was catalogued by Dr. Rieu, it was a literary parda-nishīn, and since that time has been little better. Abū-'l-faẓl, for whose information it was written, does not mention it, but the Akbar-nāma is not without indication of its use.*

Bāyazīd's Tārīkh-i-humāyūn was reproduced several times on its completion. Gul-badan Begam's Humāyūn-nāma was written under the same royal order and for the same end. It would have been natural to reproduce it also, but no second example of it can be discovered by us in any of the accessible book-catalogues of Europe or India, and prolonged search, made by advertisement, private inquiry, and in person by my husband in India, has failed to dis­close knowledge of its existence which may not con­jecturally be traced to my own work upon it. Once hope arose that a second MS. was to reward the search, because a correspondent intimated that he possessed for sale a MS. which was inscribed as being the begam's. On examination this was found to be so, but the MS. was a copy of the Kānūn-i-humāyūn of Khwānd-amīr. It is now in the British Museum.

Hope was again aroused by a mention of Gul-badan's book in a recent work, the Darbār-i-akbarī of Shamsu-l-ulamā' 'Muḥammad Ḥusain āzād. Mr. Beveridge paid two visits to the author in Bombay, but could learn nothing from him. He appeared mentally alienated, denied all knowledge of the work, and that he had ever written of it. His reference may conjecturally be traced to my article in the Calcutta Review upon Gul-badan Begam's writings, and does not, unfortunately, appear to indicate access to a second MS.

The MS. from which I have translated belongs to the Hamilton Collection in the British Museum, and was bought in 1868 from the widow of Colonel George William Hamilton. It is classed by Dr. Rieu amongst the most remarkable of the 352 MSS. which were selected for purchase out of the 1,000 gathered in by Colonel Hamilton from Lucknow and Dihlī. It does not bear the vermilion stamp of the King of Oude, so the surmise is allowed that it came from Dihlī. It has been rebound (not recently, I believe), plainly, in red leather; and it is unadorned by frontispiece, margin, or rubric. Whether there has ever been a colophon cannot be said; the latter pages of the work are lost. The folio which now stands last is out of place, an error apparently made in the rebinding. Catch­words are frequently absent, and there are none on the last folio. There are blank fly-leaves, prefixed and suffixed, of paper unlike that of the MS..

The absence of a second MS., and, still more, the absence of mention of the work, seem to indicate that few copies ever existed.

Dr. Rieu's tentative estimate of the date of the British Museum MS. (seventeenth century) does not, I am coun­selled, preclude the possibility of transcription so late in the sixteenth century as 1587 (995 H.) onwards. It may be the first and even sole example.

Gul-badan Begam, as is natural, uses many Tūrkī words, and at least one Tūrkī phrase. Her scribe (who may be herself) does not always write these with accuracy; some run naturally from the pen as well-known words do; some are laboured in the writing, as though care had to be taken in the copying or original orthography.

Tūrkī was Gul-badan's native language; it was also her husband's; it would be the home speech of her married life. Persian was an accomplishment. These considera­tions awaken speculation: Did she compose in Persian? or in Tūrkī? That she read Tūrkī is clear from her upbringing and her references to her father's book. She has one almost verbal reproduction of a passage from it retained in Tūrkī.

The disadvantage of working from a single MS. is felt at every point, and nowhere more than when the MS. itself is under consideration.