________________
NOVEMBER, 1915)
THE DATE OF AKBAR'S BIRTH
237
the Kavi Raj apparently gives also the day of the month, 14, which is not in Stewart. Mr. Beveridge further points out that there are two editions of Jauhar. Since Mr. Beveridge translated the Akbarna mah, he has kindly re-examined the MSS. in the British Museum on my behalf and informs me that edition No. 1-the original Memoirs, is B.M. MS. Additional 16.711, in which the birth and arrival passages are respectively entered on folios 54 b and 56 a. The edition revised at Jauhar's request by Faizi Sirhindi (B.M., MS. or 1890) distinctly gives Rajab as the month of birth, with Shâbân as a marginal note. Faizi omits the words stating that Akbar arrived at Jûn on the 35th day after his birth (ráz az taulud-i shabzada). But he preserves the day of the month, the 4th for the nativity, applying it to Rajâb instead of Shâbân.
Mr. Beveridge in his letter dated June 6, 1914, which he authorizes me to quote, goes on to say
" It seems to me that it is quite possible that the day of the month was the 14th, and that hence Jauhar calls Akbar Badru-d-din. Jauhar, however, adds that Badr and Jalal mean the same thing, that is the full moon, and, of course, the 14th or 15th Rajab would be full moon, just as much as 14th Shâbân. 12 Supposing that the day of the month really was the 14th, it is quite possible that the courtiers may have changed it to the 5th in order to make Akbar's natal day a Sunday, which was a sort of special day with him.
But I cannot believe that Gulbadan Begam and all the others were mistaken about the month. It is simpler and more probable that Jauhar was mistaken about the month, and that therefore his editor altered the passage and made it Rajab. There could be no object in their giving a wrong month. Jauhai was old and silly."
Those remarks give away the whole case, because they admit that Jauhar's editor tampered with the author's manuscript, and that the courtiers probably altered the day of the month in order to bring in Sunday. In reality, there is no question of mistake at all. Jauhar was not mistaken about Akbar's arrival during the Ramazan fast. He could not possibly blunder in that detail. Nor was there any mistake possible about the namegiving. The story of the name-giving in Jauhar is inseparably bound up with the date. Both statements together are either true or false. They could not have come into existence in any conceivable manner as the result of inadvertence or forgetfulness. The discrepancy in the authorities is due to deliberate falsification on one side or the other, and to nothing else. It should be remembered that Jauhar's memoir is believed to have been composed under instructions from Abu-l-Farl, who must have read it. I have been occupied all my adult life in weighing evidence and have no hesitation in finding the verdict that Jauhar's statements are true both as concerning the date and as concerning the naming-indeed, I go so far as to say, that owing to the form in which they are made, they not only are. but must be true. Hence it follows that the allegations of the "courtiers" are false, having been made for definite and adequate reasons which will be discussed presently.
12 Jauhar does not call Akbar Badru-d-din. He states that he himself was present when Hamiyan conferred that name or title for the reason clearly enunciated. He does not say that the two titlos 'mon the same thing'. His comotion is that Badru-d-din signifies nearly the same thing as Jalaluddin, th
me by which Akbar i sommonly known.'
