^{page 79 note 1} What was written by Mr. Elphinstone in 1813 about the Bukhārā MS. may be quoted for the sake of exact information :—

“ November 10, 1813.—I did not delay writing to Mīr ‘Iẓẓatu’l-lāh at Bukhārā for the Turkish of Bābar.”

“ Poona, February 14, 1814.—In hunting for the Persian translation of Bābar to compare with yours, I stumbled on the original Turkish, which I have been writing to Bukhārā for and which all the time has been among my books. The Turkish copy derives great consequence from its being the one used by Leyden.”

¹ Journal des Savants, 1873.

^{page 91 note 1} Two books have been based upon the Memoirs and may be mentioned here. First, Denkwürdigkeiten des Zehir-eddin Muh. Bābar, Kaiser, A. (Leipzig, 1828)Google Scholar. This is a reproduction of the Memoirs. Secondly, an abridgment of the Memoirs, by R. M. Caldecott (London, 1844).

Other items of Bābariānu are:—

“ Life of Bābar.” Erskine, William. 2 vols. (Longmans, London, 1854.)Google Scholar

“ Bābar.” Rulers of India Series ; Lane-Poole, Stanley. (Oxford, 1899.)Google Scholar

“ Bābar Pādshāh Ghāzī.” Beveridge, Henry. (Calcutta Review, 07 1897.)Google Scholar

“ Bābar's Diamond: Was it the Koh-i-nūr?” Beveridge, H.. (Asiatic Quarterly Review, 04 1899.)Google Scholar

“ Was ‘Abdu’r-raḥīm the translator of Bābar's Memoirs?” Beveridge, H.. (Asiatic Quarterly Review, 07 1900, and October 1900.)Google Scholar

“ Notes on the Turkī Text of the Bābar-nāma.” Beveridge, A. S.. (07 1900, July 1902, October 1905, January 1906.)Google Scholar

A notice of Bābar, with translation of extracts, in Elliott & Dowson's “ History of India,” vol. iv.

The Wāqi‘āt-i-bābarī (Bābar-nāma) has been written of and quoted from in Turkī, in Davids’ Turkī Grammar and in the Journal Asiatique of 1842.

^{page 91 note 2} The impression has been made upon me, which is set down merely as a result of work, that the Bābar-nāma offers its own difficulty in the way of creating a new Turkī text. It appears to me to demand for this a more than usually broad basis of old and authentic manuscripts ; for a Turkī scholar working for the purification of his text from all extraneous to Turkī might make his text other than Bābar left it. Bābar's own manuscript only or a careful and faithful copy could make it sure whether a lapse from Turkī form or wording was his or a scribe's. As his, variations have interest; they may sometimes be a collateral outcome (on which the Turkī scholar would enjoy speculation) of the genius of his mother-tongue. Care would be needed not to destroy his own work.