I.—On the Weeping-Willows Of f. 190 b .
The passage omitted from f. 190b, which seems to describe something decorative done with weeping willows, (bed-i-mawallah) has been difficult to all translators. This may be due to inaccurate pointing in Bābur’s original MS. or may be what a traveller seeing other willows at another feast could explain.
The first Persian translation omits the passage (I.O. 215 f. 154b); the second varies from the Turkī, notably by changing sāch and sāj to shākh throughout (I.O. 217 f. 150b). The English and French translations differ much (Memoirs p. 206, Mémoires i, 414), the latter taking the mawallah to be mūla, a hut, against which much is clear in the various MSS.
Three Turkī sources2791 agree in reading as follows:—
Mawallahlār-nī (or muwallah Ḥai. MS.) kīltūrdīlār. Bīlmān sāchlārī-nīng yā ‘amlī sāchlārī-nīng ārālārīgha k:msān-nī (Ilminsky, kamān) shākh-nīng (Ḥai. MS. șākh) aūzūnlūghī bīla aīnjīga aīnjīga kīsīb, qūīūb tūrlār.
The English and French translations differ from the Turkī and from one another:—
(Memoirs, p. 206) They brought in branching willow-trees. I do not know if they were in the natural state of the tree, or if the branches were formed artificially, but they had small twigs cut the length of the ears of a bow and inserted between them.
(Mémoires i, 434) On façonna des huttes (mouleh). Ils les établissent en taillant des baguettes minces, de la longeur du bout recourbé de l’arc, qu’on place entre des branches naturelles ou façonnées artificiellement, je l’ignore.
The construction of the sentence appears to be thus:—Mawal-lahlār-nī kīltūrdīlār, they brought weeping-willows; k:msān-nī qūīūbtūrlār, they had put k:msān-nī; aīnjīga aīnjīga kīsīb, cut very fine (or slender); shākh (or șākh)-nīng aūzūnlūghī, of the length of a shākh, bow, or șākh...; bīlmān sāchlārī-nīng yā ‘amlī sāchlārī-nīng ārālārīgha, to (or at) the spaces of the sāchlār whether their (i.e. the willows') own or artificial sāchlār.
These translations clearly indicate felt difficulty. Mr. Erskine does not seem to have understood that the trees were Salix babylonica. The crux of the passage is the word k:msān-nī, which tells what was placed in the spaces. It has been read as kamān, bow, by all but the scribes of the two good Turkī MSS. and as in a phrase horn of a bow. This however is not allowed by the Turkī, for the reason that k:msān-nī is not in the genitive but in the accusative case. (I may say that Bābur does not use nī for nīng; he keeps strictly to the prime uses of each enclitic,
nī accusative, nīng genitive.) Moreover, if k:msān-nī be taken as a genitive, the verbs qūīūb-tūrlār and kīsīb have no object, no other accusative appearing in the sentence than k:msān-nī.
A weighty reason against changing sāch into shākh is that Dr. Ilminsky has not done so. He must have attached meaning to sāch since he uses it throughout the passage. He was nearer the region wherein the original willows were seen at a feast. Unfortunately nothing shows how he interpreted the word.
Sāchmāq is a tassel; is it also a catkin and were there decorations, kimsān-nī (things kimsa, or flowers Ar. kim, or something shining, kimcha, gold brocade) hung in between the catkins?
Ilminsky writes mu’lah (with ḥamza) and this de Courteille translates by hut. The Ḥai. MS. writes muwallah (marking the ẓamma).
In favour of reading mawallah (mulah) as a tree and that tree Salix babylonica the weeping-willow, there are annotations in the Second Persian translation and, perhaps following it, in the Elphinstone MS. of nām-i-dirakht, name of a tree, dīdān-i-bed, sight of the willow, bed-i-mawallah, mournful-willow. Standing alone mawallah means weeping-willow, in this use answering to majnūn the name Panj-ābīs give the tree, from Leila’s lover the distracted i.e. Majnūn (Brandis).
The whole question may be solved by a chance remark from a traveller witnessing similar festive decoration at another feast in that conservative region.