The History of Humāyūn (Gulbadan Begam) 7.3

7.3

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 Turki words, and at least one Turki 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. Turki 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 Turki? That she read Turki 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 Turki. The disadvantage of working from a single MS. is felt at every point, and nowhere more than when the MS. itself is under consideration.