There are three Persian translations of the Bābur-nāmeh, all of which are based on the same text represented by both the Hyderābād and Elphinstone Manuscript, viz.:

(a) ’Abd ur Rahīm’s translation (1590), which practically covers the whole text. This version, although it cannot possess the same value as the Tūrki source, faithfully respects the original text, and ‘such variations as exist do not affect the essential accuracy of the document’.*

Of this translation a good many copies are preserved in the Public Libraries of this country, the Bib. Nat. of Paris has two (264 and 265), and there is one in my private library. The India Office MS. (Ethè No. 2989) is perhaps the most reliable. The British Museum possesses another fine copy (Or. 3714), illustrated with exquisite miniatures by Akbar’s artists, but it does not present a very correct text.

(b) The version of Payandah Khan and Muhammed Quli (1586), based on the same text, but incomplete. All the MSS. accessible in this country are imperfect, the best being B. M. Add. 6588 II, and India Office 913.

(c) The translation of Shaikh Zain ud dīn Khwāfī (1590), which only covers eleven months (1525-6), and was prob­ably never completed. There are two copies of this version in the B. M. (Or. 1999 and Add. 26202), both of which are fairly good.

The only European versions of the Memoirs are Pavet de Courteille’s in French, and that of Erskine and Leyden in English. On the merits of the latter I have already enlarged. Pavet de Courteille’s translation (Paris, 1871) is fairly good, but he has generally sacrificed style to accuracy, and in some passages, owing perhaps to the faulty nature of Ilminski’s text, his interpretation is defective, and even unintelligible.

Erskine tells us in his Preface that his work of translation was based on a collation of three manuscripts, viz. (a) ’Abd ur Rahīm’s Persian translation, (b) Metcalfe’s copy of another Persian version, and (c) a Tūrki text (the Elphin­stone Codex). There can be little doubt that the two Persian translations referred to by him are those numbered Add. 26200 (a good sixteenth-century copy of ’Abd ur Rahīm’s translation) and Add. 26201 (an inaccurate copy of the same version dated early nineteenth-century), which were among the manuscripts acquired by the British Museum after Erskine’s death. He also possessed a copy of another Tūrki text (B. M. Add. 26324), which, although fragmentary, is a very good manuscript, dated 1629, and part of a copy of the Persian version by Shaikh Zain ud dīn Khwāfī (B. M. Add. 26202).

Pavet de Courteille was of opinion that Erskine had only a perfunctory knowledge of Tūrki, and that he relied chiefly on ’Abd ur Rahīm’s Persian translation, which presents many difficulties of interpretation owing to its involved style, and the use of many Tūrki words and even whole verses, which are introduced without a translation, due to negligence, ignorance, or undue confidence in his reader’s knowledge.

Leyden’s MSS. passed into the possession of the India Office, but unfortunately, owing to the deficiency of records, it is impossible to identify them all. His MS. of the Tūrki text (No. 2538) is of little value, as it is a modern transcript dating from the beginning of the nineteenth century. As the Elphinstone Codex was in his possession, it is unlikely that he made use of this manuscript. It is doubtful if any of the India Office MSS, of the Persian version belonged to Leyden. If he can be assumed to have used any of them, it must have been ’Abd ur Rahīm’s translation. My special thanks are due to Mr. A. G. Ellis for his invaluable assistance in the preparation of the foregoing account of the texts and translations of the Bābur-nāmeh, and other bibliographical notes.

We must remember that though Leyden was associated with Erskine as joint translator of the Memoirs, the chief credit of the work belongs to the latter. Leyden translated less than half the Memoirs, and even this portion had to be substantially revised by his colleague. Erskine, on the other hand, contributed a valuable Preface and Introduction, supplied practically all the notes, and filled up the blanks in Bābur’s Journal with scholarly memoranda.

I have carefully collated with Erskine and Leyden’s translation Pavet de Courteille’s French version, which is based on a comparatively accurate Tūrki text, and any important differences of interpretation are indicated in the foot-notes. These have been ruled off from the notes on the text, and are distinguished by small italic letters.

I have thought it advisable to correct the old-fashioned spelling of names and places and bring it up to date, though the modern system of transliteration has not been strictly adhered to where the pronunciation was not affected. In spite of the great care that has been taken over the matter it is possible that a few inconsistencies may remain. The greater part of Erskine’s notes have been retained, but a few have been omitted as obsolete, some com­pressed, and others brought up to date. New notes have been added where necessary, and these are distin­guished by square brackets. I have spared no pains to identify the animals and plants mentioned in the Memoirs, but the task is rendered difficult by the vagueness of Bābur’s descriptions, the corruption of the texts, and the mistakes of the transcribers.

My friend Lt.-Col. D. C. Phillott has kindly placed his unique knowledge of Eastern bird-lore at my disposal, and I have also found much useful information in Jerdon’s Birds of India (Calcutta, 1877), Sterndale’s Mammalia of India (Calcutta, 1884), Blandford’s Fauna (Mammalia) of British India (London, 1888-9), The Fauna of British India (Birds) by Oates and Blandford (London, 1889-98), Bonavia’s Cultivated Oranges and Lemons of India and Ceylon (London, 1890), and Watts’ Dictionary of the Economic Products of India, but some names of animals and plants still remain unidentified or doubtful.

The original map attached to the Memoirs, being incom­plete and obsolete, has not been reproduced, and Wadding­ton’s note thereon has also been omitted. A new map has been prepared under my directions by Messrs. J. Bartholomew & Sons to illustrate Bābur’s campaigns in Turkestan, Afghanistan, and India, and I take this opportunity to acknowledge the careful manner in which this work has been performed. A number of place-names occurring in the Memoirs defy identification owing to the corruption of the texts, the changes of nomenclature, or the fact that they are too insignificant to be shown in any map. I have, how­ever, been able to identify the more important places on Bābur’s routes with the assistance of the following maps: Major J. Rennell’s map in his Memoir of a Map of Hindustan (2nd ed., London, 1792), Waddington’s map prefixed to the first edition of Erskine and Leyden’s translation of the Memoirs (London, 1826), Elphinstone’s map in his Account of Caubul and its Dependencies (London, 1839), Sir H. Yule’s map in Woods’ Journey to the source of the Oxus (London, 1872), Elias’ map of Central Asia in the Tarīkh i Rashīdī (London, 1895), Lane-Poole’s map in his Bābar (Oxford, 1899), and the Atlas of the Imperial Gazetteer of India, by Hunter and Meyer (Oxford, 1907-9).

Among the many works consulted in the preparation of my notes on history, ethnography and religion, the following may be specially mentioned: History of Bāber, by W. Erskine (London, 1854), referred to as E. B.; The Encyclo­paedia Britannica (last edition); History of India, by Elliott and Dowson (London, 1867); Notes on Afghanistan, by Major Raverty (London, 1888); Oriental Biographical Dictionary, by T. W. Beale, revised by H. G. Keene (London, 1894); A Dictionary of Islām, by T. P. Hughes (London, 1895); Tarīkh i Rashīdī, translated by Elias and Ross (London, 1895), referred to as T. R.; the Provincial Gazet­teers of the Panjāb and United Provinces.

The portrait of Bābur, which forms the frontispiece of the first volume, has been printed from a heliogravure plate, the property of the trustees of the Gibb Memorial, to whom my cordial thanks are due for kindly permitting me to use it. The portrait is a slightly enlarged copy of a miniature in the B. M. (Add. 5717, fol. 52). This portrait, the work of which is very fine, appears in Lane-Poole’s Bābar, but the reproduc­tion was so much enlarged that the likeness has become faint and indefinite. From its style the miniature would appear to have been executed in Turkestān, and it preserves the Tūrki characteristics of feature. It is undated, but, if not contemporary, ‘it doubtless represents a tradition, and probably copies an earlier miniature’ (Lane-Poole’s Bābar, p. 7).

Pavet de Courteille’s version contains four long passages of doubtful authenticity, which are omitted in Erskine and Leyden’s translation, and these I have thought it best to include in this edition as Appendices A, B, C, and D. The first describes Bābur’s miraculous deliverance from immi­nent danger at Kirmān; the second supplies an account of Hindāl’s adoption by Humāyūn’s mother; the third fur­nishes a plain account of the battle of Kānwāha; and the fourth gives the story of Humāyūn’s illness and Bābur’s self-devotion. Appendix E contains short biographies of the joint authors of the translation, the material for which has been obtained from the Dictionary of National Biography (1st ed., London, 1885). A copious analytical index is provided.