| Names. | Date of completion. | Scribe. | Last known location. | Archetype. | Remarks. |
| 1. Waqi‘nama-i-padshahi _alias_ Babur-nama. | 1121-1709. Date of colophon of earliest known example. | ‘Ābdu’l-wahhab _q.v._ Taken to be also the author. | Bukhara. | Believed to be the original compilation. | _See_ Part III. |
| 2. Nazar Bai Turkistani’s MS. | Unknown. | Unknown. | In owner’s charge in Petrograd, 1824. | No. 1, the colophon of which it reproduces. | Senkovski’s archetype who copied its (transferred) colophon. |
| 3. F. O. Codex (Timurpulad’s MS.). | 1126-1714. | Unknown. | F.O. Petrograd, where copied in 1742. | Not stated, an indirect copy of No. 1. | Bought in Bukhara, brought to Petro. 1725. |
| 4. Kehr’s Autograph | 1737. | George Jacob | Pet. Or. School, 1894. London T.O. 1921. | No. 3. | _See_ Part III. |
| 5. Name not learned. | 1155-1742. | Unknown. | Unknown. | No. 3. | Archetype of 9. |
| 6. (Mysore) A.S.B. Codex. | Unknown. JRAS. 1900, Nos. vii and viii. | Unknown. | Asiatic Society of Bengal. | Unknown. | — |
| 7. India Office Codex (Bib. Leydeniana). | Cir. 1810. | Unknown. | India Office, 1921. | No. 6. | Copied for Leyden. |
| “The Senkovski Babur-nama.” | 1824. | J. Senkovski. | Pet. Asiatic Museum, 1900. | No. 2. | Bears a copy of the colophon of No. 1. |
| 9. Pet. University Codex. | 1839? | Mulla Faizkhanov? | Pet. Univ. Library. | No. 5 (?). | — |
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.
Chapter IV.
THE LEYDEN AND ERSKINE MEMOIRS OF BABER.
The fame and long literary services of the Memoirs of Baber compel me to explain why these volumes of mine contain a verbally new English translation of the Babur-nama instead of a second edition of the Memoirs. My explanation is the simple one of textual values, of the advantage a primary source has over its derivative, Babur’s original text over its Persian translation which alone was accessible to Erskine.