T.—On L:knū (Lakhnau) and L:knūr (Lakhnūr, Now Shāhābād in Rāmpūr).
One or other of the above-mentioned names occurs eight times in the Bābur-nāma (s.a. 932, 934, 935 AH.), some instances being shown by their context to represent Lakhnau in Oudh, others inferentially and by the verbal agreement of the Ḥaidarābād Codex and Kehr’s Codex to stand for Lakhnūr (now Shāhābād in Rāmpūr). It is necessary to reconsider the identification of those not decided by their context, both because there is so much variation in the copies of the ‘Abdu’r-raḥīm Persian translation that they give no verbal help, and because Mr. Erskine and M. de Courteille are in agreement about them and took the whole eight to represent Lakhnau. This they did on different grounds, but in each case their agreement has behind it a defective textual basis.—Mr. Erskine, as is well known, translated the ‘Abdu’r-raḥīm Persian text without access to the original Turkī but, if he had had the Elphinstone Codex when translating, it would have given him no help because all the eight instances occur on folios not preserved by that codex. His only sources were not-first-rate Persian MSS. in which he found casual variation from terminal nū to nūr, which latter form may have been read by him as nūū (whence perhaps the old Anglo-Indian transliteration he uses, Luknow).2843—M. de Courteille’s position is different; his uniform Lakhnau obeyed the same uniformity in his source the Kāsān Imprint, and would appear to him the more assured for the concurrence of the Memoirs. His textual basis, however, for these words is Dr. Ilminsky’s and not Kehr’s. No doubt the uniform Lakhnū of the Kāsān Imprint is the result of Dr. Ilminsky’s uncertainty as to the accuracy of his single Turkī archetype [Kehr’s MS.], and also of his acceptance of Mr. Erskine’s uniform Luknow.2844—Since the Ḥaidarābād Codex became available and its collation with Kehr’s Codex has been made, a better basis for distinguishing between the L:knū and L:knūr of the Persian MSS. has been obtained.2845 The results of the collation are entered in the following table, together with what is found in the Kāsān Imprint and the Memoirs. [N.B. The two sets of bracketed instances refer each to one place; the asterisks show where Ilminsky varies from Kehr.]
| Ḥai. MS. | Kehr’s MS. | Kāsān Imprint. | Memoirs. | ||||
| 1. | | | f. 278b | L:knūr | L:knū | L:knū, | p. 361 | Luknow. |
| 2. | f. 338 | L:knū | " | ” | p. 437 | " | |
| 3. | f. 292b | L:knūr | L:knūr | ” | p. 379* | not entered. | |
| 4. | f. 329 | L:knūr | L:knūr | ” | p. 362* | Luknow. | |
| 5. | f. 334 | L:knū | L:knū | ” | p. 432* | " | |
| 6. | | | f. 376 | L:knū | L:knūr | ” | p. 486* | " |
| 7. | f. 376b | L:knūr | " | ” | p. 487* | " | |
| 8. | f. 377b | L:knū | " | ” | p. 488* | " | |
The following notes give some grounds for accepting the names as the two Turkī codices agree in giving them:—
The first and second instances of the above table, those of the Ḥai. Codex f. 278b and f. 338, are shown by their context to represent Lakhnau.
The third (f. 292b) is an item of Bābur’s Revenue List. The Turkī codices are supported by B.M. Or. 1999, which is a direct copy of Shaikh Zain’s autograph T̤ābaqāt-i-bāburī, all three having L:knūr. Kehr’s MS. and Or. 1999 are descendants of the second degree from the original List; that the Ḥai. Codex is a direct copy is suggested by its pseudo-tabular arrangement of the various items.—An important consideration supporting L:knūr, is that the List is in Persian and may reasonably be accepted as the one furnished officially for the Pādshāh’s information when he was writing his account of Hindūstān (cf. Appendix P, p. liv). This official character disassociates it from any such doubtful spelling by the foreign Pādshāh as cannot but suggest itself when the variants of e.g. Dalmau and Bangarmau are considered. L:knūr is what three persons copying independently read in the official List, and so set down that careful scribes i.e. Kehr and ‘Abdu’l-lāh (App. P) again wrote L:knūr.2846—Another circumstance favouring L:knūr (Lakhnūr) is that the place assigned to it in the List is its geographical one between Saṃbhal and Khairābād.—Something for [or perhaps against] accepting Lakhnūr as the sarkār of the List may be known in local records or traditions. It had been an important place, and later on it paid a large revenue to Akbar [as part of Saṃbhal].—It appears to have been worth the attention of Bīban Jalwānī (f. 329).—Another place is associated with L:knūr in the Revenue List, the forms of which are open to a considerable number of interpretations besides that of Baksar shown in loco on p. 521. Only those well acquainted with the United Provinces or their bye-gone history can offer useful suggestion about it. Maps show a “Madkar” 6 m. south of old Lakhnūr; there are in the United Provinces two Baksars and as many other Lakhnūrs (none however being so suitable as what is now Shāhābād). Perhaps in the archives of some old families there may be help found to interpret the entry L:knūr u B:ks:r (var.), a conjecture the less improbable that the Gazetteer of the Province of Oude (ii, 58) mentions a farmān of Bābur Pādshāh’s dated 1527 AD. and upholding a grant to Shaikh Qāẓī of Bīlgrām.
The fourth instance (f. 329) is fairly confirmed as Lakhnūr by its context, viz. an officer received the district of Badāyūn from the Pādshāh and was sent against Bīban who had laid siege to L:knūr on which Badāyūn bordered.—At the time Lakhnau may have been held from Bābur by Shaikh Bāyazīd
Farmūlī in conjunction with Aūd. Its estates are recorded as still in Farmūlī possession, that of the widow of “Kala Pahār” Farmūlī.—(See infra.)
The fifth instance (f. 334) connects with Aūd (Oudh) because royal troops abandoning the place L:knū were those who had been sent against Shaikh Bāyazīd in Aūd.
The remaining three instances (f. 376, f. 376b, f. 377b) appear to concern one place, to which Bīban and Bāyazīd were rumoured to intend going, which they captured and abandoned. As the table of variants shows, Kehr’s MS. reads Lakhnūr in all three places, the Ḥai. MS. once only, varying from itself as it does in Nos. 1 and 2.—A circumstance supporting Lakhnūr is that one of the messengers sent to Bābur with details of the capture was the son of Shāh Muḥ. Dīwāna whose record associates him rather with Badakhshān, and with Humāyūn and Saṃbhal [perhaps with Lakhnūr itself] than with Bābur’s own army.—Supplementing my notes on these three instances, much could be said in favour of reading Lakhnūr, about time and distance done by the messengers and by ‘Abdu’l-lah kitābdār, on his way to Saṃbhal and passing near Lakhnūr; much too about the various rumours and Bābur’s immediate counter-action. But to go into it fully would need lengthy treatment which the historical unimportance of the little problem appears not to demand.—Against taking the place to be Lakhnau there are the considerations (a) that Lakhnūr was the safer harbourage for the Rains and less near the westward march of the royal troops returning from the battle of the Goghrā; (b) that the fort of Lakhnau was the renowned old Machchi-bawan (cf. Gazetteer of the Province of Oude, 3 vols., 1877, ii, 366).—So far as I have been able to fit dates and transactions together, there seems no reason why the two Afghāns should not have gone to Lakhnūr, have crossed the Ganges near it, dropped down south [perhaps even intending to recross at Dalmau] with the intention of getting back to the Farmūlīs and Jalwānīs perhaps in Sārwār, perhaps elsewhere to Bāyazīd’s brother Ma‘rūf.